[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"

Some time ago S. J. Gould came with another good idea: when the
standpoint from which we see things becomes messy (and this is to what
redefinitions lead), it's time to try with another standpoint. The
definition of Aves has such a convoluted history, such a variety of
preferred uses, that the best thing it seems to me science can do is
forget trying to make it fit typology the better it can (that's what
it iseems to be behind the different attempts of attaching it to the
crown -regarding the argument of unambiguous inference of non-fossil
features- or whatever else wingy or feathery theropod subgroup), and
just avoiding the terms Aves and birds, and use new names. In the same
way that in scientific phylogenetic nomenclature you can easily avoid
talking about commonly used terms which imply non-monophyly such as
lizards, fishes, bugs, or worms. Then the problem would be transferred
to scientific divulgation, but having more than one definition would
require a similar effort on them.