[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dino Birds (was Re: Dinosaur = extinct animal)
The problem here is that someone started using >EXCLUSIVELY< the english
common names for many groups and you are basing the problems you see
within the relationships on that.
Using the proper scientific nomenclature immediatly brings the groupings
into focus, rather than leaving it in the vague and foggy relationships
the common names assume.
The Tree of Life website helps you think about it graphically.
The terminology (scientific nomenclature) that Linneaus came up with is
still even used by cladists. Common names are not used. Why come up
with a new terminology when the old and CORRECT one works so well?
Carl Ramm wrote:
> Please forgive what may be a dumb or worn-out question, but I'm afraid the
> classifying of birds as dinosaurs just doesn't make that much sense to me. My
> knowledge of cladistics isn't very good, so that may well be the problem, but
> purely logical grounds it is hard for me to grasp the reasoning involved.
> If we are going to classify birds as dinosaurs because of their descent, then
> would we classify mammals as reptiles, reptiles as amphibians, amphibians as
> fish, etc.? If not, what is the difference in the case of dinosaurs and
> birds? If the idea is that the birds never "left" the dinosauria, then how do
> you ever "leave"? If in fact we should consider mammals as a form of reptile
> (and thereby also a type of amphibian, fish, etc.) haven't we stretched the
> meaning of the terminology past the breaking point? Wouldn't it be better to
> come up with a new terminology?
Flying Goat Graphics
(Society of Vertebrate Paleontology member)