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

Re: Are dinosaurs really reptiles?

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Adam <adam@crowlspace.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike
>  Let's go for a name with a bit of baggage... Sauria.

In the past this was used for a taxon similar to Diapsida -- a
contrast was drawn between the Saurian reptiles (including crocs, I
think, as well as dinosaurs, of course) and the Testudine reptiles.
More recently _Sauria_ has been used by some for the diapsid crown
group (including birds, excluding testudines).

> Thus Archosauria and Dinosauria kind of logically follow as sub-names, when 
> you explain to the
> kiddies that each group is kind of like the last, but with upgrades. Could
> call the squamates and testudines something, in NeoGreco-Latin, meaning
> "sprawly, crawly" Sauria

That's already _Lepidosauria_ ("scaly saurians").

>  Just an idea, but the current situation seems like utterly ridiculous
> anarchy.

More or less, yes. But, seeing as no body currently governs such
names, what would you expect?
T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology
Exopolis, Inc.
2894 Rowena Avenue Ste. B
Los Angeles, California 90039