loki130 t1_j54qryf wrote
For the most part, Reptilia just isn't really used as a formal taxon anymore. It may sometimes be used as a convenient grouping of more basal or less metabolically active amniotes, but in this way it usually applied to extant or recent groups (i.e., the classic collection of lepidosauria, turtles, and crocodilians) in which case there's no need to specify the inclusion or exclusion of early synapsids. The definition of reptilia as basically synonymous with sauropsida was an attempt to sort of preserve the term as a proper monophyletic clade, but in my experience researchers mostly refer to sauropsida instead to avoid any ambiguity.
Evolving_Dore t1_j5divlo wrote
I haven't encountered the same reality in the herpetological circles I'm part of. Most researchers continue to use reptilia and reptile as terms, either including avian reptiles or excluding them with the understanding that they are technically a part of this group. You will find many herpetologists use reptile in the same context that sauropsid would be employed, but don't bother being extremely technically correct, given that everyone understands the intent.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments