[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"
- From: Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:02:34 +1000
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <BLU121-W192403CC209D015C0157C2D1390@phx.gbl>
- References: <email@example.com> <CAFGhNbPe7zNaH30Yv4=xx4DO9knxQf3Tab3TuYwy3U4UmZLb-Q@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
Anthony Docimo <email@example.com> wrote:
> Okay. Let's assume we somehow get people to stop calling them _Aves_ and
> They'll probably make those same assumptions when you start describing
> those organisms (feathers, etc)
Sadly, certain people will make those assumptions, even when they
really ought to know better. For example, the following statement
comes from as recently as 4 years ago (from Burnham, 2007; N. Jb.
Geol. Palaont. Abh. 245: 33-44):
"The caveat is that the evolution of birds is now
tied to this new paradigm of flight origin whereby
maniraptoran "dinosaurs" (e.g. _Microraptor_) are
not only the progenitors of flight, but possess
fundamental avian attributes, and therefore, must
actually be birds themselves (Martin 2004;
Feduccia et al. 2005)."
The take-home message from this farrago of nonsense is that "avian" is
still being (mis)used in a typological fashion. There is no such thing
as a "fundamental avian attribute" - not feathers, not wings, not
flight. The claims that these and other attributes are defining
features of Aves, rather than arising in a stepwise fashion for
various reasons, is one of the reasons why it is perhaps better to
limit Aves to the crown-clade. That way, fossil theropods such as
_Archaeopteryx_ and _Microraptor_ are not automatically assumed to
belong to Aves, simply because they fit someone's nebulous,
typological preconception of what a "bird" is.