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

Re: birds and/or/with dino's

 OF COURSE!  Before I had really ever begun to read much about
 dinosaurs and ancient life in earnest as a child, I recognized that
 bird feet and theropod feet were no coincidence. BUT to the common
 masses (of which ah'm) when one says "dinosaur" they are speaking
 about the classic perception of them - instead of the "non-avian
 dinosaur" terminology of today.  Sometimes, it makes it difficult to
 ask questions due to getting answers involving modern birds.

What should really have been done would have been to abandon the word Dinosauria and to make up a new term for the entire clade, birds included. But it's too late for that.

 As for the length of
 the tail being used as the cut-off line, while noting the
 transitional forms, I'd say just use what is normal for today's birds
 - short 'n' stubby.

Define that.

Then look at *Sinornis*, *Confuciusornis*, *Sapeornis* and think again.

Then look at juvenile enantiornitheans and juvenile *Confuciusornis* and think once more...

I'm not saying it's impossible (Avebrevicauda got a definition in Dinosaurs of the Air after all), but it's not trivial.