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

Re: [...] Archaeopteryx 10

Yesterday I forwarded the following without telling who the original author was. That's stupid. Thanks to Mary for alerting me of how tired I was... the original is by Eike ("evelyn sobieski").

> "Bird", if the Mayr et al study is worth anything,
>  is a form taxon with no phylogenetic merit if
>  one includes the fossil record,

You're way too pessimistic :-)

Nahhh, I mean the vernacular term alright. Not "avian", "bird". Basically the "fundament" for BCF - a confusion between the form taxon and the taxon. I'm completely optimistic that much if not most of Aves will turn out a proper clade (because most of Aves already IS - Neornithes). But critters like Rahonavis were and still are overused by BCF proponents and the likes, and media nerds, to expand "bird" to the breaking point and beyond. "Bird" (as it's not a scientific term) has come to mean "flying feathered 'reptiles'", and suggesting Birds = Aves runs one into all sorts of trouble.