[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: What is big, fluffy, and could tear you to shreds? Yutyrannus, the 9 m long feathered tyrannosauroid from China

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:
> The BANDit mindset is
> rooted in the outdated, typological mindset that any fossil showing
> true feathers *must*, by definition, be a bird.  As they themselves
> put it: "...birds are monophyletic and are nicely defined by their
> unique possession of feathers."

Don't confuse differences in definition with differences in phylogeny.
There's nothing wrong with defining birds as an apomorphy-based clade
anchored on the presence of feathers (in fact as stated numerous times
on this list, such a definition was the first one proposed for Aves in
the 1980s). The problem with BANDits is in their phylogeny, not their
definition of the vernacular English word "birds". Arguing semantics
with the BANDits just confuses matters. Argue with their science