Re: Rahonavis....Both!

["T. Mike Keesey" <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>]

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/23/99 11:58:42 PM EST, tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu writes:
> 
> << Personally, I reserve the word
>  "bird" for avians, but some extend it to all avialans. "Bird" IS a
>  vernacular term, after all. >>
> 
> There are several interesting advantages to defining birds as "all archosaurs
> closer to extant birds than to crocodilians (and maybe turtles, for that
> matter)." For one thing, it stifles the debate on whether and which dinosaurs
> are birds and vice versa. >All< dinosaurs become birds according to this
> definition. Then all you need to debate are such questions as, "Which
> dinosaurs are not also >avialan< birds?"

Seriously, though, is anyone going to refer to sauropods or ankylosaurs or
pterosaurs as "birds"? We already have a name for {Neornithes >
Crocodylia}. Granted, Ornithosuchia is not a very good name, but it works. 

Me, I say: "Aves means 'birds', so 'birds'=Aves".

--T. Mike Keesey                                    <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>
WORLDS                                  <http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1>
THE DINOSAURICON                               <http://dinosaur.umbc.edu>