You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘sloppy taxonomy’ tag.

LET’S SUPPOSE that we are interested in studying the evolution of the squamates, the snakes and lizards. We know that if we track down the evolutionary tree of the squamates we find that they are lepidosauromorphs, and a sister group to the archosauromorphs. Ah-hah! The archosauromorphs diverged before the evolution of the lizards, so living archosauromorphs must preserve ancestral traits, we think. So we go forth and find an archosauromorph and sequence its genome. There are multiple species from which to choose, but we grab the closest one—the European starling. Since this is an archosauromorph and early diverging compared to the snakes and lizards that must mean that it is “primitive”.

Does this seem odd to you?

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

SINCE I STARTED this blog I have received an increasing number of hits from search engines. Unsurprisingly, one of the topics funneling people this way is the Nimravidae. My entry on the Dinictis skull replica found at Bone Clones has received the most hits overall since I started this blog. Unfortunately, there is not really much information about nimravids available without some digging, and very little on the open web. So here I will pull together everything I can currently get my hands on!

Read the rest of this entry »

TODAY I WAS poking about at Bone Clones (their slogan is “Only Mother Nature Does it Better”, but I think it should be “Because Everyone Should Have a Replica of the Skull of a Conquistador Who Took an Axe to the Brain“) and found a beautiful replica of a nimravid skull, namely Dinictis.

Read the rest of this entry »