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

Re: mammal-like reptiles is a good name?



jrw6f@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu wrote:

>         Mr. Sumner:  What ever gave you the impression that
> "mammal-like reptiles" is a "perfectly good" name.  If you ask
> me, it's as bad as "non-avian dinosaurs".  It serves, in that
> it immediately conjures the image of the creatures it
> represents, but it also misleads.  It implies that the early
> synapsids did not eventually give rise to the mammals.  To my
> mind, anything is preferable to continuing the taxonomic
> dissarray that the term "reptile" has brought about.
> Wagner

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to infect the mailing list with an
argument over triviality, but...

Why should the term "mammal-like reptile" imply that "the early
synapsids did not give rise to the mammals?"  Where else would
you expect the mammals to spring forth?  Non-mammal like
reptiles?  This term, for me, clearly demonstrates the
transitional nature of these synapsids, and is a term which
communicates their position well to those whose knowledge in
this area is quite limited -- such as me.

And, hey, what's wrong with "non-avian dinosaurs?" <g>

Mark
----
Visit my home page at http://www.greyware.com/authors/Sumner
or check out the DEVIL'S TOWER Preview page at
http://www.inlink.com/~range