[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sinosauropteryx filament melanosomes challenged
Well, sure; why is that a problem?
The way the term actually gets used, in reality, equates to 'ectothermic
amniote' (I say ectothermic rather than poikilothermic because of hummingbird
torpor and such). Trying to make it a clade (and thus including birds) just
confuses people. But there really isn't any gain in getting rid of the word
entirely, either; having to talk about "lepidosaurs, crocodilians, and
chelonians" would be a pain.
The formal classification Reptilia should just go away -- presuming we're using
a system where monophyly is required. But the informal term 'reptiles' is still
Same for 'fish' (Class Pisces is pretty much dead, but we can still talk about
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dann Pigdon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 3:42:47 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: Sinosauropteryx filament melanosomes challenged
On Tue, Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:38 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> I think the word 'reptile' (or 'Reptilia', etc.) should just be dropped from
> any phylogenetic
> system; it just confuses the public to make Reptilia include birds. "Reptile"
> is a perfectly good
> word for "ectothermic amniote"; it doesn't need to be crammed into
> designating a clade, any
> than 'fish' (="non-tetrapod vertebrates"?) does. Clades are not the only
> useful categories.
> So (IMO) crocodiles should be 'reptiles'; dinosaurs should not.
Yet crocs are also archosaurs, and only secondarily ectothermic. By your
definition that would
make them secondarily reptilian as well. So much for attempting to avoid
Spatial Data Analyst Australian Dinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia http://home.alphalink.com.au/~dannj