[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Phyl Tax roundup (was Re: Quick cladistics question)

At 12:17 PM 4/3/97 -0600, you wrote:

>        Dinosauria = { + "birds", + _Triceratops_ }
>----> What is wrong with this picture?
>        "Birds" is *not* a taxon, phylogenetic or otherwise, rendering this
>definition meaningless. Unfortunately, a "first reviewer" cannot replace
>this definition with a more appropriate one on this excuse, but he could
>replace "birds" with a taxon, rendering these definitions phylogenetically

Gauthier (p. 12 of the 1986 paper) indicates that his use of "birds" and
Aves are not synonymous, as as Archaeopteryx IS a "bird", but is outside of
his formulation of Aves.

Thus, it seems that he is using "bird" as the vernacular form of Avialae.

(Chiappe, in the Gondwana dinos volume, uses "bird" as the vernacular for
his formulation of Aves (Archie + Neornithes) and "modern bird" as the
vernacular for Neornithes (Gauthier's version of Aves).

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist     Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology              Email:th81@umail.umd.edu
University of Maryland        Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD  20742       Fax:  301-314-9661