If we insisted that all groups must be categorized and named so that taxonomic ranks/names always include a single common ancestor and all of its descendants, how would this new evidence change our definition of a hexapod? Hexapoda and Melacostraca would have to be classified as a new Subphylum Hexapods would have to be classified into a new phylum, outside of Arthropoda Hexapods (insects) would be considered crustaceans. This would not change our definition of a hexapod.
If we insisted that all groups must be categorized and named so that taxonomic ranks/names always include a single common ancestor and all of its descendants, how would this new evidence change our definition of a hexapod? Hexapoda and Melacostraca would have to be classified as a new Subphylum Hexapods would have to be classified into a new phylum, outside of Arthropoda Hexapods (insects) would be considered crustaceans. This would not change our definition of a hexapod.
Biology Today and Tomorrow without Physiology (MindTap Course List)
5th Edition
ISBN:9781305117396
Author:Cecie Starr, Christine Evers, Lisa Starr
Publisher:Cecie Starr, Christine Evers, Lisa Starr
Chapter11: Evidence Of Evolution
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1CT
Related questions
Question
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
Knowledge Booster
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, biology and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.Recommended textbooks for you
Biology Today and Tomorrow without Physiology (Mi…
Biology
ISBN:
9781305117396
Author:
Cecie Starr, Christine Evers, Lisa Starr
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Biology Today and Tomorrow without Physiology (Mi…
Biology
ISBN:
9781305117396
Author:
Cecie Starr, Christine Evers, Lisa Starr
Publisher:
Cengage Learning