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

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

> This just doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.
> If, by later analysis, it turns out that a different paraphyletic taxon is
> more useful than the chosen one(s), then a taxonomic revision may be called
> for.  This will likely result in accepting the new, previously "excluded"
> group, and rejecting the previously conflicting one.  With proper
> information-theoretic analysis, this should be relatively rare, however.

I just don't see how one can objectively say one paraphyletic group is
more useful than another. 

> >This doesn't address the other terms. I find myself using "non-neornithean
> >dinosaurs" at least as much as I use "non-avian dinosaurs". Under
> >traditional taxonomy, one has to use the rather clumsy phrase
> >"non-neornithean avians and dinosaurs".
> 
> Hmm, this depends a little on whether the non-neornithine birds have their
> own taxon.  I suspect this may be likely, in which case the phrase would be
> slightly nicer: dinosaurs and "paleornithines".

Problem unsolved. Imagine trying to refer to non-ornithothoracean
dinosaurs with such a scheme: "dinosaurs and non-ornithothoracean
paleornithines".
 
--T. Michael Keesey
tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu | THE DINOSAURICON: http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/
AOL IM:   RicBlayze | WORLDS:    http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1/