[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: birds and avians again
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 ELurio@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/1/01 10:42:45 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << ??? I'm very curious to hear your definition of "wing". >>
> Well, as the term has several definitions [I don't think that feminine hygine
> products with them can fly], the operative one "forlimbs of flighted for
> secondarily flightless birds.
So bats, pterosaurs, and insects don't have wings?
Furthermore, you can't define "bird" based on presence of wings, then
define "wings" based on whether they're found on a bird!!!
> What would you call the forlimbs of flightless cormorants. for
Good point -- I don't think it is a binary issue as to whether something
has wings or not. There's a good bit of grey area between "arm" and
Let me ask this, then -- suppose a descendant of the kiwi loses its
forelimbs entirely. No remnant bones, no nothing. Does it belong to
At any rate, I can't see myself keeping this thread up much longer, since
I don't really care how Classis Aves is defined. (The proper answer, as
with many traditional taxa, "However the taxonomist feels.") I'm far more
concerned with Clade _Aves_.
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <email@example.com> --> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>