[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: [Re: [Re: Non-serpentine lacertids (was RE:WHAT'S GOING ON?)]]
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: Non-serpentine lacertids (was RE:WHAT'S GOING ON?)]]
To me it appears that due to the influx of dino-bird
>fossils, the gaps between dinosauria and aves seem to have been bridged
>that aves has been thrown out. Does this mean that when/if there are enough
>fossils to bridge
>the gaps between dinosauria and the other ornithodirans, that we will
>the common usage of dinosaur in favour of ornithodira?
>The haphazard use of dinosaur and "non-avian dinosaur" is what was annoying
>me. Nothing about bringing back the Linnean revolution.
The term "non-avian dinosaur" has bothered me too. I don`t see why the
distinction has to be made, and it becomes difficult as more of these
"transitional forms" are dug up to classify them one way or the other.
Besides, I believe as George does that all theropods are secondarily
flightless anyway. I have no qualms about getting rid of the term "aves"
altogether, and classifying them all as "Theropods".....seems more
appropriate...(would probably piss off a lot of ornithologists though!).
We can call them dinosaurs, but that is a pretty general term. Ornithodira
would include an even larger group.The theropod foot seems a good defining
character.Feathers would be nice,...but it is not certain from fossil
evidence if all theropods were feathered,...or for that matter, if sauropods
or even ornithishians were not. Seems to me that the one sure uniting
character of this particular group is the foot structure .