[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: A Word on ABSRD

On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, David Marjanovic wrote:

> Speculative scenario (shameless self-promotion strikes again)... what if,
> say, my phylogeny, (Compsognathidae + (*Archaeopteryx* ?+ *Rahonavis* +
> Dromaeosauridae) + (Arctometatarsalia + (Oviraptorosauria + (Alvarezsauridae
> + *Yandangornis* + *Avimimus* + Pygostylia)))), comes to be accepted :-]
> _before Aves will have been given a definition under the PhyloCode_? Then,
> as long as people don't use the crown-group definition of Aves (hardly
> anyone still does), *Utahraptor*, *Tyrannosaurus* and *Ornithomimus* are
> members of Aves (*Archaeopteryx* + Neornithes). While there are people who
> have expressed views like "then so be it", how many people would think so,
> too, rather than change the definition of Aves? (Qualifying clauses?)

Anything belonging to Clade (_Archaeopteryx_ + _Passer_), if not flighted
itself, very likely had flighted ancestors. Therefore, if Dromaeosauridae,
etc. fall in the clade, they should fit the "common" notion of Aves as
well as ratites, Phorusrhacidae, etc.

Furthermore, phylogenetic taxonomy isn't about fitting "common" notions,
anyway. It's about labelling clades. So let it stand.

 Home Page               <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
  The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>