Re: Sinosauropteryx filament melanosomes challenged

[vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu]

I think the word 'reptile' (or 'Reptilia', etc.) should just be dropped from 
any phylogenetic system; it just confuses the public to make Reptilia include 
birds. "Reptile" is a perfectly good word for "ectothermic amniote"; it doesn't 
need to be crammed into designating a clade, any more than 'fish' 
(="non-tetrapod vertebrates"?) does. Clades are not the only useful categories.

So (IMO) crocodiles should be 'reptiles'; dinosaurs should not. 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sim Koning" <simkoning@msn.com>
To: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>, dinosaur@usc.edu
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 11:37:22 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: Sinosauropteryx filament melanosomes challenged



Let me guess...they call us BADies? Is it alright if I call myself a WAASCORE? 
(Why are archosaurs still considered reptiles?!)
----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:30:47 +0100
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Sinosauropteryx filament melanosomes challenged
>
> > They are also sometimes known as the BAND camp (flutes optional).
>
> In all fairness, Storrs "BAND leader" Olson invented this. At the SAPE*
> meeting in Beijing in 1996, he and some or all of the other BANDits ran
> around wearing buttons saying "Birds Are NOT Dinosaurs!".
>
> * Society for Avian Paleontology & Evolution.                                 
>