Class-less dinosaurs

[Phillip Bigelow <n8010095@henson.cc.wwu.edu>]

In the mid-nineteenth century, the classification _Dinosauria_
as a formal Class was made by Thomas Huxley.  The evidence linking
all members of the group together was adequate, but not solid.

In the 1920's the idea of the Class DINOSAURIA fell out of favor.
But in the 1970's Peter Galton and Robert Bakker re-proposed the
name in the journal _Nature_.  Since then, work by Gauthier, and
by Sereno, among many others, have shown that the members of the
proposed Class DINOSAURIA do indeed share unique traits
(synapomorphies).  Further, birds are now generally accepted to
be theropod dinosaurs.

  So, why does the archaic (yes, archaic) Class AVES
still continue to be used in systematics?  It certainly isn't the
state of science that is maintaining this psuedo-class!  Is it
politics?  Is it a reflection of the rift between dinosaur 
paleontologists and ornithologists?  Who will eventually decide
whether AVES eventually gets thrown in the trash heap of history?
ICZN is not responsible for such matters.
 I can't believe that resistence from such people as Larry Martin
is holding up the final abandonment of the Class AVES.
It is time that all sources, be they science journals, children's
books, magazines, bird-watchers guids and Peterson's Guide ALL
start to use the proper systematics for birdies.
  Birds are in the Class DINOSAURIA, not AVES.  AVES is dead.  Someone
get a shovel and let's all go out and bury it.
 If the ornithologists on this listserve want AVES retained, why not
knock it's rank down to something below maniraptoran-level (in other words,
it is going to be REAL low...below the subclass THEROPODA).  But at least
it will be the first time bird's true systematic rank is accurate in over
100 years.  John Ostrom, strangely, believes that AVES should be
retained.  I can't figure out why he, of all people, would want this.