Re: Rahonavis....Both!

["John V Jackson" <jjackson@interalpha.co.uk>]

--Original Message-- From: Dinogeorge@aol.com To: lawrence@dsuper.net :
Wednesday, February 24, 1999 05:01 PM


>In a message dated 2/24/99 10:22:52 AM EST, lawrence@dsuper.net writes:
>
><< Say what?  All this does is retain the same question using different
terms.
> Seeing as how it really screws around with the common term "bird", I don't
> see any advantage to this definition at all. >>
>
>Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn what they're called. Birds,
schmurds.
>Maybe schmurds is better; comes with no prior historical baggage. So:
>dinosaurs are flightless schmurds, birds are flying schmurds, and so on.
>


True, it's better to find the shape of the tree than to name its branches.
One day though, the pioneers of the future will rediscover the old truth:
"Has(/d) flight feathers - equals bird".