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

Re: Caudipteryx suffered from osteoarthritis



On 6 January 2012 16:39, Mike Keesey <keesey@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Robert Schenck <schenck.rob@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Right, which is pretty much beyond 'old fashioned' and down-right
>> anti-biological. I've gotten the impression that many ornithologists,
>> even if they accept the evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs
>> and birds, will still never give it up that Birds are Dinosaurs.  Its
>> not the craziest thing in some ways, sort like saying 'Humans
>> descended from amphibians, but Human's are not Amphibians (HANA)' ( of
>> course amphibian has a loose meaning, while dinosaur has a strict
>> one).
>
> Not the best example, since, when converted to a clade, "Amphibia" is
> restricted to the lissamphibian total group or the lissamphibian crown
> group (depending on the author). It isn't ever used as a synonym for
> "Tetrapoda" (or "Apo-Tetrapoda"). Your general point holds, though --
> there's a lot of resistance to phylogenetic nomenclature.

And yet no-one doubts that penguins, which lack feathers and flight,
are birds.  Why?  Because they're descended from incontrovertible
birds.  Deep in the depths of their hearts, even BANDits are actually
phylogenetic taxonomists.

-- Mike.