[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.)

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/