Bovids evolved from bovines. I cannot be proven wrong.
>this family evolved from a subfamily contained within the aforementioned family
The immediate conclusion is that all species originated as subspecies, and genera as closely related species. If we fix those clades to beyond such passes of eras we can think of them as referring to the ancestral event of them as one group. Why can’t the same terms allude to them in their point as one altogether, or closely knit as such? (Hence the need to mention crown hominini, bovini etc.)The immediate implication then is that they describe ancestral species: At least under the modern definition, humans and chimpanzees are both hominins. This term then describes the immediate common ancestor of the two. At that point it belonged to a multitude of closely related species as part of the hominine clade, or effectively a genus. Essentially the humanzee common ancestor should already be naming itself: Hominina Homininus, after homininae and hominini respectively.The limitation is how the designation of clades can be etymologically locked. In this case that -ini requires the identity of a subtribe, inae a tribe and idae a family. In likewise fashion to the aforementioned clade science I affirm the genetic understanding of it: tribe and family designation may yet be the most arbitrary, but exist as the extension of species and therefore genus. Hence just as common ancestral species are referenced and with that the function of primordial genera preceding further diversification, in this way can we say that “this family evolved from a subfamily”. On primary faith to etymology, bovidae came from bovinae by understanding of further diversification over time, negating the other way around. Cladology cannot resoundedly rely itself upon the diversification it describes.
>>5145197Meant to reply to >>5145177
