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

Re: New theropod phylogenetics paper



>> However, mammals
>> evolved from "reptiles," but we don't call them that, even if they are
nested
>> therein.
>
>Are you using the term "reptile" to denote _anything_ that creeps on the
ground,
>as opposed to a particular amniote taxon?  Mammals are not descendants of
>"reptiles" according to any scientific definition I know of, and my
dictionary
>(which readily accepts crabs and oysters as "fish") offers no such loose,
>colloquial definition for "reptile."  Who uses the term "reptile" to mean
"any of
>a number of miscellaneous creeping animals" today, ancient Romans?
>
Alright, a little sarcasm in between here, but why don't we all start to
call everyone and everything on this planet "fïsh" or something like that.
Fish are one of the first advanced back-boned animals and gave rise to
amphibians who gave rise to reptiles and so fort. But to say that mammals
are not reptiles is a bit rude, since they did evolve from one. I'm not
advocating mammals _are_ reptiles, but they are descendants from the
reptiles. That we don't call them reptiles anymore is because they lack
key-reptilian characteristics.
And another example, birds are reptiles! See what the list comes up with
this one... :)