[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 be fair, this again depends on how you define Aves. The oldest
phylogenetic definition published for Aves is an apomorphy-based on
anchored on the presence of feathers (Charig, 1985). In this usage
(which is just as valid as any other pre-PhyloCode), feathers are not
only a fundamental avian attribute, they are the *defining* attribute
(How you define 'feather' is another story).
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Anthony Docimo <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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