Re: TOBS: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

In sci.bio.herp Budikka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Kathleen Hunt transitionals FAQ, talk.origins archives.  A summary of
> transitionals (reptile-mammal is particularly well-documented in the
> fossil record),

        This is incorrect.  Synapsids, though they're sometimes referred
to as `mammal-like reptiles', are not members of Reptilia under any
current definition of that taxon--and Reptilia is the proper referent for
`reptile' (see the Oxford English Dictionary, for instance).  But no
member of Reptilia was an ancestor of Mammalia.
        Though it doesn't seem unreasonable in normal language to assume
that `mammal-like reptiles' should be a sub-category of `reptiles', this
is not the case, and arguments based on this assumption are unsound.

        Patrick Alexander