Talk:Taxon in disguise

Cetaceans

Here's one to add, though I don't know much about it or have a reference-- Cetaceans evolved from artiodactyls. Modern phylogeny uses Cetartiodactyla, Cetruminantia, and Whippomorpha, though I'm not sure about how/where each is used. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Added.Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Flatworms

User Ucucha deleted the section on flatworms. The source article is however quite clear on the matter (cite from sumary): Platyhelminthes do not appear to be monophyletic, with Acoelomorpha holding a basal position in Bilateria.. In other words, we are all turbellarians. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence does not follow from the quoted sentence. Not even close. Ucucha 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the quoted sentence does not exclude the possibility that a "turbellarian-type morphology" (if that even exists) evolved independently in acoelomorphs and true platyhelminths—in which case we would not be all turbellarians. Indeed, the article also suggests that acoelomorphs may be secondarily simplified. Ucucha 20:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Basal is usually taken to mean it splits off fairly far down on the stem. Since acoelomorpha holds a "basal position to bilateralia", I can't really interpret this other than that it is the sister group to "the rest of us". Now, you might argue that acoelomorpha aren't really platyhelmintes in the first place, but that's certainly where they have been placed traditionally, or as they say: "platyhelminthes do not appear to be monophyletic".

The term "taxon in disguise" is purely a product of Linnaean taxonomy. In phylogenetic taxonomy (at least of the PhyloCode decide to revert to uninomens) an "in disguise" situation simply cannot form. Thus the article will have to have a basically Linnaean taxonomic approach. Platyhelminthes is thus interpreted in traditional Linnaean meaning. This should be made clear though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Only bacteria?

While there are no shortages of taxa hailing from other taxa, I'm not sure about the animal section. The actual expression seems to me to be limited to bacteriology. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Or, to be precise, to the titles of two bacteriological articles, as far as I've been able to find. Ucucha 20:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)