[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
> 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
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