[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Dinosaur a tecnical term; fish is not (was RE: Fish with milk (Sheesh spinoff))
Mike Taylor wrote:
It is true that the word "dinosaur" was originally coined for a technical
taxonomic content. But that content, as of the original coinage, most
surely did not include birds.
I think Tom is saying that when the word 'dinosaur' was coined it was
intended to be a taxonomic category. This is more important than the exact
content, which has changed over time.
Also, don't forget that this change in content has been a two-way street.
Not only are birds now included in the Dinosauria, but there are taxa that
were once described (scientifically) as dinosaurs but which were later
removed from this group e.g., teratosaurs, hallopodids, revueltosaurs.
(Speaking of non-dinosaurs... the latest Historical Biology has a lot to say
about many alleged Middle/Late Triassic prosauropods and ornithischians.
The ranks of non-dinosaurian dinosauriforms appear to expanding courtesy of
new discoveries, and at the expense of basal Ornithischia.)
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live