RE: Archeopteryx what is bird or dinosaur?

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Dan Chure wrote:


> Not to be too cynical here, but in a way the question is meaningless and
> lots of effort can be wasted debating it. The evolutionary relationship
> is really the most important thing.


I agree.  Though I don't think this approach is cynical at all, only realistic. 
 The word 'bird' is after all a vernacular term, and can therefore only be 
loosely applied in a scientific sense.  This problem comes up again and again, 
and is discussed here...


Lee, M.S.Y. (2001)  Snake origins and the need for scientific agreement on 
vernacular names.  Paleobiology 27: 1-6.


This paper, although focusing on the transition from "lizard" to "snake", 
specifically mentions _Archaeopteryx_, and argues against restricting the term 
"bird" to the crown-group.



Cheers

Tim
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize!
http://www.gowindowslive.com/Mobile/Landing/Messenger/Default.aspx?Locale=en-US?ocid=TAG_APRIL