Re: dinosaur flatware

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-01-11 23:28:46 EST, pwillis@ozemail.com.au (Paul
Willis) writes:

>While this definition may be squeaky clean for the hard-core cladist, it is
>not particularly useful. If I find animal X, this definition of a dinosaur
>in no way allows me to deterrimine if my animal is or is not a dinosaur.
>Isn't it more pragmatic to give synapomorphies as part of the definition of
>a particular clade?

Defining groups by descent isn't _my_ idea! In their zeal to rid taxonomy of
its subjective typological definitions, cladists are making their own
taxonomies ever more useless. But--if you know the synapomorphies that unite
_Megalosaurus_ and _Iguanodon_ (they're mainly cranial and hind-limb
characters, by the way), you should be able to check to see whether your
animal X has them. If it does, then it is probably a dinosaur. If not, then
it probably is not a dinosaur.

"Deterrimine"--? Have you got a sticky R key, too?