[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Are dinosaurs really reptiles?
Jean-Michel, I would've thought that made the most sense, but teaching
the kiddies about the difference between anapsids, synapsids, euryapsids
and diapsids is not something most textbooks seem to do. Mind you I've
read some good popularisations targetting kids and lay-people which make
the distinction clear from very early on in the discussion. Usually
there's a chapter "What is a dinosaur?" which clears up all the usual
misunderstanding about sphenacodonts, plesiosaurs and pterosaurs. But I
still have a kids book which throws *Pterodactylus* and *Dimetrodon*
into the "dinosaur" bucket. Arrgh! When will "big old beastie" not be
equated with "dinosaur"???
Jean-Michel BENOIT wrote:
Maybe _non-synapsid amniotes_ ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Marjanovic" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "DML" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: Are dinosaurs really reptiles?
Let's go for a name with a bit of baggage... Sauria.The Microsauria are a fairly large group of lepospondyls (?amphibians)...
*Mastodonsaurus* is a temnospondyl (?amphibian)... *Habrosaurus* is a
salamander... *Basilosaurus* is a whale... it wouldn't help that much.