From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #5247 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Monday, November 2 2020 Volume 14 : Number 5247 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Breathing Like This For 1 Minute Lowers Heart Attack Risk By 79% (Latest Research) ["Fast Energy Routine" Subject: Breathing Like This For 1 Minute Lowers Heart Attack Risk By 79% (Latest Research) Breathing Like This For 1 Minute Lowers Heart Attack Risk By 79% (Latest Research) http://alivekit.bid/30M_5ni8XcPijN-sd98Qgugu4BQFASVs2fy1W65jVIMAUcz6 http://alivekit.bid/QrcplWB3vNt12xji96vXF19a8CU-LsudolLCWPucv7DKqcNX All groups with scientific names are monophyletic (that is, they are clades), and the sequence of scientific classification reflects the evolutionary history of the related lineages. Groups that are traditionally named are shown on the right; they form an "ascending series" (per Clark, see above), and several groups are paraphyletic: "prosimians" contain two monophyletic groups (the suborder Strepsirrhini, or lemurs, lorises and allies, as well as the tarsiers of the suborder Haplorhini); it is a paraphyletic grouping because it excludes the Simiiformes, which also are descendants of the common ancestor Primates. "monkeys" comprise two monophyletic groups, New World monkeys and Old World monkeys, but is paraphyletic because it excludes hominoids, superfamily Hominoidea, also descendants of the common ancestor Simiiformes. "apes" as a whole, and the "great apes", are paraphyletic if the terms are used such that they exclude humans. Thus, the members of the two sets of groups, and hence names, do not match, which causes problems in relating scientific names to common (usually traditional) names. Consider the superfamily Hominoidea: In terms of the common names on the right, this group consists of apes and humans and there is no single common name for all the members of the group. One remedy is to create a new common name, in this case "hominoids". Another possibility is to expand the use of one of the traditional names. For example, in his 2005 book, the vertebrate palaeontologist Benton wrote, "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan ... the gorilla and chimpanzee ... and humans"; thereby Benton was using "apes" to mean "hominoids". In that case, the group heretofore called "apes" must now be identified as the "non-human apes". As of 2005, there is no consensus as to whether to accept traditional (that is, common), but paraphyletic, names or to use monophyletic names only; or to use 'new' common names or adaptations of old ones. Both competing approaches can be found in biological sources, often in the same work, and sometimes by the same author. Thus, Benton defines "apes" to include humans, then he repeatedly uses "ape-like" to mean "like an ape rather than a human"; and when discussing the reaction of others to a new fossil he writes of "claims that ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #5247 **********************************************