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

Re: Caudipteryx suffered from osteoarthritis

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:22 PM, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
> Like Matt Martyniuk, you're misunderstanding this issue. Their concept of
> "bird" includes "not a dinosaur, and not descended from a dinosaur". _That_
> is _not_ a purely nomenclatural issue, it's a phylogenetic and thus
> scientific one.

But does this change their results? (Honestly, I don't know the
answer. Has osteoarthritis been reported in any other stem-avians)?

If they had said "stem-avian" instead of bird, would there still be an
issue? The point I'm arguing is that it is not incorrect to report the
first evidence of osteoarthritis in a "bird", whatever that means. If,
as it appears, they mean bird to mean either stem-avian or
avifilopluman, their title is valid whether you think avians are
dinosaurs, protorosaurs, or arthropods.