[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re:Response to Gould?
Ho-kaaaaaay...here we go again with the "elephants are fish" argument!
Elephants are NOT fish and Birds are NOT Dinosaurs. I will now run for
Yes, birds ARE dinosaurs, just as they are archosaurs, diapsids and
amniotes. That is a phylogenetic reality (at least based on abundant
evidence). Elephants are therapsids, just as they are synapsids and
amniotes. It is whether "birds" should be called dinosaurs which is the
casus bellus here. I don't think paleontologists are advocating that
people, in everyday vernacular usage, should abandon the noun "bird" in
favor of "dinosaur". That's silly. To claim that this is what
paleontologists are advocating is a misrepresentation of their views, with a
pinch of mischief added to the mix.
Nevertheless, birds do seem to be descended from dinosaurs, and as such,
must be regarded as dinosaurs. Elephants did descend from some type of
fish. The "fishes" represent several clades of (primitively)aquatic
vertebrates; in a sense, the fishes are the non-tetrapod vertebrates. The
term "fish" is phylogenetically meaningless; the term "vertebrate" is more
appropriate in this context. Elephants are vertebrates? I can live with
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com