[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
At 11:32 PM 1/12/96 -0800, pharrinj@PLU.edu wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jan 1996, Jeff Poling wrote:
>> At 11:21 PM 1/12/96 -0500, MMraptor@aol.com wrote:
>> >Have you thought about calling it Mesozoic-ware? The only thing that these
>> >animals seem to have in common is that they lived in the Mesozoic era
>> If I'm not mistaken, Dimetrodon did not make it past the paleozoic.
>> >(as I personally
>> >believe very strongly that dinosaurs are *not* reptiles.
>> Dinosaurs certainly are reptiles.
>Which definition of "reptile" are you using? If you mean "amniote minus
>synapsid," I think "sauropsid" would be a better choice. "Reptile" is
>too connotationally loaded (cold-blooded, scaly, low-energy, egg-laying,
>etc.). Dinosaurs certainly were not "reptiles" in the vernacular sense
>of the word.
I use the clade version. I'm not sure what the demarcation is ... I
suspect it isn't amniote minus synapsid as that would include amphibians ...
but as long as there is a clade called reptile or reptilia, Dinosaurs are
reptiles. That it conjures up all sorts of false images is unfortunate, but
it's up to the cladists to stop using the name. As long as they use it we
have to refer to dinosaurs as reptiles to be scientifically consistent.
Dittos for Linnean taxonomy.
** THE DINOSTORE. AFTER CHRISTMAS BLOWOUT! ALL IN-STOCK DINOSAUR FOSSIL **
** REPLICAS, COLLECTIBLES AND BOOKS 30% OFF! ALL ARE AT OR NEAR COST!! **
** BUY $50 WORTH, SALE PRICE, AND GET 30% OFF ONE SPECIAL-ORDER FOSSIL **
** REPLICA! Check out our on-line catalog at http://www.infinet.com/~jpoling/**
** Hurry, quantities are limited! **