[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Triassic pterosaur found in Argentina + Amphicoelias vertebra replica + other news
That just goes to show how useless taxonomy can be. There's no such thing as a
'fish', after all. :-)
Compound the limitations of taxonomy with the fuzzy definition of 'species',
and the whole thing
becomes an exercise in futility. You might as well be pulling random numbers
from a hat.
Dinosaurs have always been considered 'reptiles', so if you accept that birds
are theropods then it
stands to reason that birds are also 'reptiles'. Not that 'taxonomy' and
'reason' are always close
On Mon, Aug 4th, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jura <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> For the same reasons that they were always considered reptiles while birds
> Remember this is taxonomy, not phylogenetics.
> From: Dann Pigdon <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2014 7:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Triassic pterosaur found in Argentina + Amphicoelias vertebra
> replica + other news
> On Sun, Aug 3rd, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Jura <email@example.com> wrote:
> > According to IOC World Bird List (http://www.worldbirdnames.org/) there are
> > 10,534 extant
> > species recognized. So birds still beat out reptiles (10,038 recognized
> > species), if just by a
> > few hundred. It will be interesting to see where things stand in the next
> > few years.
> How can crocs be considered 'reptiles' while birds aren't? Surely either all
> archosaurs are
> 'reptiles', or none of them are.
Spatial Data Analyst Australian Dinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia http://home.alphalink.com.au/~dannj