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

Re: Rahonavis....Both!

At 1:31 -0500 24/2/99, Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

><< Personally, I reserve the word
> "bird" for avians, but some extend it to all avialans. "Bird" IS a
> vernacular term, after all. >>
>There are several interesting advantages to defining birds as "all archosaurs
>closer to extant birds than to crocodilians (and maybe turtles, for that
>matter)." For one thing, it stifles the debate on whether and which dinosaurs
>are birds and vice versa. >All< dinosaurs become birds according to this
>definition. Then all you need to debate are such questions as, "Which
>dinosaurs are not also >avialan< birds?"

Say what?  All this does is retain the same question using different terms.
Seeing as how it really screws around with the common term "bird", I don't
see any advantage to this definition at all.

Laurie Nyveen                                  lawrence@dsuper.net
Editor, Netsurfer Digest - <http://www.netsurf.com/nsd/index.html>
DNRC Minister of Adding "ue" to Words That End in "log"
"All we are, basically, are monkeys with car keys."
                             - Grandma Woody (Northern Exposure)