Re: Mesozoic-ware

[pharrinj@PLU.edu]

On Sat, 13 Jan 1996, Jeff Poling wrote:

> >>    Dinosaurs certainly are reptiles.
> >
> >Which definition of "reptile" are you using?  If you mean "amniote minus 
> >synapsid," I think "sauropsid" would be a better choice.  "Reptile" is 
> >too connotationally loaded (cold-blooded, scaly, low-energy, egg-laying, 
> >etc.).  Dinosaurs certainly were not "reptiles" in the vernacular sense 
> >of the word.
> 
>    I use the clade version.  I'm not sure what the demarcation is ... I
> suspect it isn't amniote minus synapsid as that would include amphibians ...

Amphibians are tetrapods but not amniotes.  Amniotes are those tetrapods 
that lay shelled eggs (or, for you more strict cladists, all descendants 
of the last common ancestor of, say, me and a hoatzin).

> but as long as there is a clade called reptile or reptilia, Dinosaurs are
> reptiles.  That it conjures up all sorts of false images is unfortunate, but
> it's up to the cladists to stop using the name.  As long as they use it we
> have to refer to dinosaurs as reptiles to be scientifically consistent.
> 
>    Dittos for Linnean taxonomy.

Well, personally, I advocate abandonment of the name Reptilia for 
scientific purposes.  The name "reptile," from Latin "reptilis," or 
"crawling," is wholly unsuitable for dinosaurs (and birds, which, as 
dinosaurs, would have to be classified as reptiles as well).

     Nick Pharris