[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur Books and Movies
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 9:03 AM
> No, since we're not descended from chimpanzees.
No but they are close relatives. I was driving at the idea that despite
anatomical similarities with chimpanzees, orangutans etc, we are still
classed as humans. However, it wasn't a very good example for two reasons:
1. humans descended from a common ancestor with apes and 2. the resolution
was inappropriate: you'll simply point out that we're all still classed as
> No, since _Neornithes_ co-existed with other _Dinosauria_.
Ok, so we classify "birds" and "dinosaurs" within the "Dinosauria". Still, I
think that modern group of mainly volant, feathered critters should be
within a subgroup "birds" to separate them from another subgroup of mainly
terrestrial, non-feathered critters called "dinosaurs". Hence birds can be
called "dinosaurs" in the same way that humans can be called "primates", no?
Forgive the simplistic thinking, but personally it helps me (if nothing
else) to create a token division between two groups with quite different
ecologies. [that reads like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not really!]