[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Stephen Czerkas' dromaeosaurs = birds but not dinosaurs
Stephan Pickering (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
<I do not, on the basis of his forthright abstract, grasp how he can posit
a non-dinosaur origin for dinosaur dromaeosaurs, unless his converted
clade names are not constructed according to rigorous phylogenetic
First, there cannot be any such thing as a "converted clade name"
until/if PhyloCode is published. Otherwise, any new definition (and
Czerkas does not use them) is just a new definition, and any taxa are just
And second ... yeah, Czerkas doesn't use definitions in the PT
(phylogenetic taxonomy) sense (de Quieroz and Gauthier, 1991 & 1992). A
good deal of practicing systematists that describe dinosaurs do not even
use cladistics. Hardly a criticism....
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes