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

Re[2]: Dinosauria---Rejected Name?



Friday, February 22, 2002, 6:49:17 PM, NJPharris@aol.com wrote:

Nac> Wouldn't bother me.  I've never thought Dinosauria was a particularly 
Nac> appropriate name, seeing as how it includes birds and a whole bunch of 
other 
Nac> non-terrible-lizardy things.

Also because of all the connotations in our culture of "dinosaur"
meaning something that is cumbersome, pea-brained, or outmoded.

Nac> There have been a number of replacement names 
Nac> floated; my personal pick is Ornithopsida, a stem-based taxon anchored on 
Nac> modern birds.

*That* will give the ornithologists something to talk about!

Nac> I didn't say they had to dump them, rather that they should be given 
Nac> apomorphy-based definitions, where the names refer to apomorphies of the 
Nac> group (note that this is not the case with Dinosauria:  it's a totally 
Nac> arbitrary matter when a "lizard" becomes "terrible").

In my own mind I've convinced myself that "terrible lizard" means that
they were terrible at being lizards!  ("Oh no, my dear, I'm a very
good dinosaur, just a very bad lizard!")

-- 
Dave