[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: The iguanodont paper

Dann Pigdon wrote:

>> I was only stating that it was evolution itself that derived birds from 
>> dinosaurs.
> That's assuming that you define 'bird' as being a distinct group apart from,
> or sub-group within, 'dinosaurs'. A broader definition of 'dinosaur' would
> always include birds, in which case 'birds' aren't really 'derived' from
> 'dinosaurs', since they still *are* dinosaurs.
> It would be like saying sauropods were derived from dinosaurs.

Yep, you got me there.  Hoist by my own petard.  I had been seduced by the dark 
side, and was using "dinosaur" in the old (non-avian/typological) sense.  Birds 
are dinosaurs, just as sauropods are dinosaurs.  Of course.  It would be like 
saying "mammals are derived from therapsids" rather than "mammals are 

I am shamed.  :-(

> Physiologically they were probably as far removed from other dinosaur groups
> as birds are - perhaps even more so. Put a sauropod, a non-avian theropod,
> an ornithopod and a bird all in a row and see which one looks like the
> odd-man-out.

That's an easy one.  The odd-man-out is the _Homo sapiens_ doing the 
comparison, and his/her anthropocentric urge to classify everything.


The best games are on Xbox 360.  Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360