Re: Dino Birds (was Re: Dinosaur = extinct animal)

[Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>]

At 12:10 PM 7/19/99 -0400, T. Mike Keesey wrote:
>See? You're still sacrificing one for the other, when, objectively, each
>is just as useful as the other.

I don't agree that they *are* all equally useful.  Those that encode ore
information have greater utility than those that imply little information.
Clade Coelurosauria minus Clade Maniraptiformes is just NOT very useful.
There are very few things indeed that can be said to be exclusively true of
that paraphyletic group.  On the other hand, there is a great deal one can
say about Clade Coelurosauria minus Clade Avialae, as it the organisms in
it are ecologically rather closely allied.  (Yes, there is some question as
to where the best partition puts the Saurornithurae: on the avian or the
dinosaur side of this split, but for now I treat them as being on the avian
side).

>No constant, arbitrary revisions necessary.

Actually, every new cladogram introduces a revision in my experience, even
if most names are retained.  A properly information-intensive Linnaean
classification can remain unchanged even if the cladogram changes.  For
instance, in the Linnaean system I can retain Prosauropoda as a taxon
*with* *the* *same* *membership* regardless of whether it is monophyletic
or paraphyletic.  That strikes me as being less revision than making it
synonymous with Sauropodomorpha if the traditional prosauropods turn out to
be paraphyletic (which is the cladistic solution)

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com