[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Archeopteryx what is bird or dinosaur?
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.
Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize!