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

Re: New theropod phylogenetics paper



In a message dated 3/3/02 12:45:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Tetanurae@aol.com writes:

<< Well that analogy is just as strained as Gould's.  Humans are nested 
within 
 "apes" just like birds are nested within dinosaurs.  They're not sister taxa 
 that evolved from common ancestors.  This is like saying that whales have 
 evolved from a common ancestor with mammals, but aren't mammals.   >>

I see your point & like many analogies, mine is strained. However, mammals 
evolved from "reptiles," but we don't call them that, even if they are nested 
therein. Not evolved from modern reptiles, of course, but the concept of 
"reptile" can be variously defined to include things you can kill in your 
yard with a rake, OR things that crawled around in the Paleozoic, or both & 
everything in-between. There's a difference between the term "apes" as you 
use it above, and "apes" as most people understand it--one hardly ever sees a 
human on display in the Ape House at a Zoo (although I can think of some that 
wouldn't look at all out of place, but I digress). Also, I don't want to 
rattle cages about whether or not birds descended from dinosaurs, since Gould 
stipulates his belief that they are--I happen to concur on this, but there 
are still those who do not. 

Chip
www.geocities.com/vorompatra