[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"
Mickey Mortimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> While I'm fine with using Aves for the crown clade, the fact MANIACs like
> Burnham continue to think typologically is of no consequence. Martin,
> Feduccia, Czerkas et al. will continue to misunderstand
> and misrepresent the consensus view no matter what we do. These are the same
> people who think theropods by definition don't climb, that saurischians's
> aren't necessarily dinosaurs, that Maniraptora
> was the "last dinosaurian clade to develop (i.e. a crown group)." They pay
> no attention to phylogenetic taxonomy or anything else in our field that's
> emerged since the 70's.
No argument there. But if Aves were to be fixed to crown clade, it
would make it harder for these folks to arbitrarily include certain
fossil taxa in Aves, based on their own typological criteria. I'm not
just thinking of _Microraptor_ or _Archaeopteryx_ here, but forms like
_Longisquama_, which have been proposed to be on the line to birds
(albeit based on fantasy more so than science)
But as you say, they'll continue to misunderstand and misrepresent
phylogenetic taxonomy whatever happens. You can lead a horse to
water, but you can't make it drink.