[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
BIRDS AS SUB-ORDER OF DINOS
BIRDS AS SUB-ORDER: I think that's causing all of this confusion about
whether birds are a sub-order of dinos or an order unto themselves is
caused by the lack of three-dimentionality in the system. The system
was invented to classify living animals, all of whom (surprise) were
(are) alive at one point in time. There are many birds as there were
dinos, so it's on the one-hand ridiculous to say that B is a subset
of D when B is as big as D. By a headcount, Dinosaurs can be divided
into two groups, one called birds and the other called Dinosaurs.
Perhaps we need to look at a third-dimension and consider birds the
(for want of something better) "successor order" to Dinosaurs?
That would account for the fact that the two orders/whatevers
existed at different times.