[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?)]]
In a message dated 7/5/00 7:04:56 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< > Why does calling a robin an avialan and a dinosaur Ok because it reflects
> ancestry, but calling it an avialan and a reptile depends on context?
> Shouldn't they both depend on context?
They're both completely valid -- the question of which to state is a
matter of context. >>
Calling birds reptiles is invalid for two reasons, reptiles in the tradtional
sense is a very different beast than a bird, i.e., reptiles are ectothermic
and birds are not, reptiles have three and a fraction chambered hearts, and
birds have four chambered hearts....we can go on and on.
The reason that some say birds are reptiles is completely political, which is
why amniote is a far superior term.