[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
birds and avians again
Jaime and George,
I tend to agree with Mike, and to me the traditional system (a
modification thereof) is looking better and better. And the thought of
making a clade Thecodontia is horrifying (thecodonts have always been a
paraphyletic group and should remain so).
Once some dust has settled some years down the road, perhaps Aves will
need to be expanded somewhat to include various coelurosaur groups, but I
doubt that a massive expansion will catch on (especially if protofeathers
and scutes are found to be closely-related variations on a theme). In the
meantime, the Archaeopteryx anchoring seems to be fine (and if Dave
Marjanovic is correct, this Archaeopteryx anchoring might automatically
force us to include dromaeosaurs and various other maniraptors in Aves). I
can sort of imagine Tyrannosaurus possibly being called a primitive "giant
ground bird" in the future, but calling sauropods (even fuzzy ones) "birds"
would be extremely hard to swallow.
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Archosaur Origins...was:MESENOSAURUS ERRATA.
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
George Olshevsky (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
<I see nothing contradictory in the system I outlined. What could be
simpler? If it's more closely
related to modern birds than to any other animals, why not call it a bird
(or, if you like, bird
I see this is an aesthetic statement, so perhaps we should persue this
... no ornithologist (all
the thousands of them) would agree or accept calling *Titanosaurus* a bird.
It isn't, in any sense
of the word, which is fairly limited. Typically, taking an animal like
*Heterodontosaurus* and a
pigeon *Columba*, one can easily tell down to the first grader and the
collegiate professor of
law, which one is a bird. This is less stable when we pick *Velociraptor*
and *Columba*, but it is
not as similar to *Diplodocus* and *Columba*. Whether one person would want
to rename this Aves
based on some "simpler" way of providing a stem-based system, based only on
living groups, is
inherently unstable and prone to dragging the vernacular with it, as you
express to anticipating.
I cannot see this as a valid system based on an apparently
aesthetic-driven stem-based living
groups, and using the names for these most inclusive groups as
vernacular-laden terms. If so, then
use the easthetically pleasing Thecodontia again? Just give it a firmer
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp