[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: diminutive dinosaurs
--- Ken Carpenter <KCarpenter@dmns.org> wrote:
> since Mike understood "non-avian", then I would argue the word is just fine
> On the other hand, since ostrich, emu, kiwi are non-volant, it isn't
> necessarily clearer to refer to "non-volant" adult dinosaurs
I wasn't suggesting it as an equivalent question, but as a more interesting
question. The node of Clade _Aves_ (sensu lato) is no longer terribly
significant, now that its boundaries have been blurred by newer discoveries.
Indeed, most times people say "non-avian dinosaur" they would be better off
saying, e.g., "extinct dinosaur", "Mesozoic dinosauromorph", "non-avialan
dinosaur", "non-neornithean dinosauromorph", "nonvolant dinosauromorph", or
some other phrase that relates more specifically to the topic at hand.
In this case, the topic was tiny dinosaurs. Volant dinosaurs (including but not
necessarily limited to avians) are often tiny because small size is conducive
to flight. The person asking the question was, I think, more interested if any
dinosaurs might have been diminutive for other reasons. (Of course, I could be
=====> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now