[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sinosauropteryx filament melanosomes challenged
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:37 AM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Using Reptilia for Lepidosauria or Squamata has the same problem -- it's just
> as unnatural to have it exclude turtles and crocs as it is to have it include
> Since there's no clade "turtles + snakes + lizards + crocodiles + tuataras"
> (all the scaly, egg-laying cold-blooded animals) to the exclusion of birds,
> which is what 'reptile' has meant for at least a couple centuries, using
> Reptilia as a clade *at all* just seems designed to confuse.
Just to play devil's advocate, why is this true of Reptilia but not
Dinosauria? "Dinosaur" had meant saurischians and ornithischians (plus
various non-dinosaurian ornithodirans and crurotarsans) to the
exclusion of birds for over a century before it was re-defined to
include birds in the '80s. What's the cutoff time for declaring that a
name is salvageable due to tradition? Why is "birds are dinosaurs" ok
but "birds are reptiles" is not? (Or "birds are fish", for that