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

Re: Tetrapod note (was: Re: [Re: Resting Sauropods])



Hmmm!
Wrong again!

Jeff Poling wrote:


> At 12:24 PM 7/17/98 -0600, Jonathan R. Wagner wrote:
> >Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:41:36 -0700
> >Ralph Miller III wrote
> >>So, as you can see, the colloquial (dictionary) meanings of "tetrapod" and
> >>"reptile" differ markedly from the cladistic meanings.  And it is proper to
> >>refer to a bird as a "reptile" and a "tetrapod," whether you feel
> >>comfortable with such labels or not.
> >
> >        I was under the impression that in general
> >biological/paleobiological circles (irrespective of cladistics), birds and
> >snakes were considered tetrapods, as tetrapod referred to animals which
> >share a four limbed heritage. Thus, amniotes, lissamphibia, and everything
> >down to something like _Ichthyostega_ were all tetrapods. Was I wrong?
>
>    You don't seem to be wrong.  My take on the whole issue was that the
> original poster misremembered the proper term for an animal that uses four
> limbs for terrestrial locomotion, quadruped, as tetrapod.
>
>    Hmmm....would a mosasaur or plesiosaur be considered quadrupeds given
> they weren't terrestrial?  How would penguins be classified given they are
> bipeds on land, but use their forelimbs for locomotion in water?
>
> ** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
> ** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of  ** little freedom for a      **
> ** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur    ** little security will soon **
> ** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur     ** find they have none of    **
> ** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com      ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **
> *************** The official website of the new millennium! ****************
>
>





--
Fight Fugue----remain irrational