Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!decuac!pa.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!psw.enet.dec.com!winalski
From: winalski@psw.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: On the classification of Platypus
Keywords: monotremes
Message-ID: <1991Apr27.231055.14488@hollie.rdg.dec.com>
Date: 27 Apr 91 23:10:55 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.111159.29888@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <4896@kitty.UUCP> <1991Apr26.183747.21006@hollie.rdg.dec.com> <421@smds.UUCP>
Sender: news@hollie.rdg.dec.com (Mr News)
Reply-To: winalski@psw.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 18

In article <421@smds.UUCP>, rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
|>A real
|>question that I don't know the answer to is whether the monotreme
|>classification is legitimate, i.e. whether the descent lines are like
|>
|>	therapsid -> monotreme
|>	          -> marsupial
|>	          -> placental
|>
|>or whether, instead, there are separate descent lines for the extant
|>monotremes.  I rather expect no one knows.

Indeed.  This kind of open and unresolvable (by scientific means of
hypothesis and testing) question is why I don't care much for
Paleontology.  Monotreme remains a useful classification for the extant
species, regardless of its paleontological legitimacy.

--PSW