[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: birds are birds, dogs are dogs
Dinogeorge commented on my musings(Monday, December 04, 2000 4:54 PM):
>In a message dated 12/4/00 5:12:10 PM EST, NKing@usi.edu writes:
<<< Do you think George "comprehends the fullness of time and richness of
in view of his denial that birds are dinosaurs? Of course he does! But
which richness of life is it? Perhaps it is all exactly as Tracy said,
"just a thought." >>>
>Let us not forget that I do >not< deny that birds are dinosaurs; in fact, I
assert that dinosaurs are, after all, really birds (the birds came first).
Some are terrestrial descendants of climbing birds that had not yet evolved
the ability to fly; others are secondarily flightless cursorial descendants
of birds that had evolved various kinds of flying ability. And so on, all
branches off the lineage from primitive archosaur to avialan bird. Needless
to say, my concept of a "bird" is broader and more inclusive than most
Yes, I stand corrected. I should have said, or something to the effect, ".
. . in view of his claim that dinosaurs are descended from birds rather than
the other way around."
And Tom Holtz said (Mon 12/4/2000, 4:39 PM), with the subtitle, "the herring
stinks, but the Cuban cigar is heavenly):
>Perhaps we have a difference of definition here. When I said that
"evolutionary lineages were the only real thing there" (the context was with
regards to "species definitions" vs. "higher order taxa"), I meant this:
Actually, I am certain that my comment in those posts a few years ago were
not in reference to anything Tom said. I am sure it was someone in Texas
who made the stronger statments I objected to. I have long appreciated the
difference between species and higher taxonomic categories and would have
had no reason to object to something stated this way.
Anyone got a match?