From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: qilongia@yahoo.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
CC: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Subject: Re: Archosaur Origins...was:MESENOSAURUS ERRATA.
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
George Olshevsky (dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:
<I see nothing contradictory in the system I outlined. What could be
simpler? If it's more closely
related to modern birds than to any other animals, why not call it a bird
(or, if you like, bird
sensu lato)?>
I see this is an aesthetic statement, so perhaps we should persue this
... no ornithologist (all
the thousands of them) would agree or accept calling *Titanosaurus* a bird.
It isn't, in any sense
of the word, which is fairly limited. Typically, taking an animal like
*Heterodontosaurus* and a
pigeon *Columba*, one can easily tell down to the first grader and the
collegiate professor of
law, which one is a bird. This is less stable when we pick *Velociraptor*
and *Columba*, but it is
not as similar to *Diplodocus* and *Columba*. Whether one person would want
to rename this Aves
based on some "simpler" way of providing a stem-based system, based only on
living groups, is
inherently unstable and prone to dragging the vernacular with it, as you
express to anticipating.
I cannot see this as a valid system based on an apparently
aesthetic-driven stem-based living
groups, and using the names for these most inclusive groups as
vernacular-laden terms. If so, then
use the easthetically pleasing Thecodontia again? Just give it a firmer
definition....
=====
Jaime A. Headden
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com