[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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
More or less, yes. But, seeing as no body currently governs such
names, what would you expect?
T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology
2894 Rowena Avenue Ste. B
Los Angeles, California 90039