[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
--- Colin McHenry <email@example.com> wrote:
> Heinz Peter Bredow wrote
> > Archaeoptery is a bird by definition.
_Archaeopteryx_ is avian by definition. "Avian" and "bird" don't have to be the
same thing. The former has a rigorous scientific definition (or, at least, the
formal taxon it's derived from does); the latter is a loosey-goosey, purely
> > Aves is defined as Archaeopteryx + Neornithes. So whatever will be found
> > by further examination of fossils of Archaeopteryx,
> > Archaeopteryx will always stay inside Aves, always being a bird.
So replace "bird" with "avian".
> Am I the only person who finds this to be a bit tautological?
If you have a better definition for _Aves_, let us know.
(Incidentally, some researchers do use a different definition, a crown group
equivalent to _Neornithes_.)
I think it would only be tautological if there were some other component to the
definition of _Aves_, but the only assumption it really rests on is that
_Archaeopteryx_ and _Neornithes_ share a common ancestor.
=====> T. Michael Keesey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!