Some thoughts on AVES

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

    YES, Tim!!!!  Actually that's an excellent example (are you shocked 
that I'm agreeing with you?).
    Anchoring Aves on genus Archaeopteryx was an accident of history, and 
given how small the gap between archaeopterygids and dromaeosaurs has now 
become, I will probably break with that tradition when the time seems right 
(most likely when Gregory Paul or George O., or someone else, comes up with 
a proposal I really like and with which I can heartily concur).
    Another (larger) gap should be chosen to mark the arbitrary line 
between Reptilia and Aves, but this time it should be based on osteological 
characters that are much more clear-cut (like those which divide therapsids 
and mammals).   Yes, a character-based taxon---do I hear booing in the 
cladist camp?  Sorry, but I think that is the best way to ensure relative 
stability of content in the long run (it did for mammals before the 
cladistic splintering messed it all up).
    Where that new line should be drawn is still far from clear, so in the 
meantime we should follow the tradition of anchoring it on Archaeopteryx 
(which happily coincides with the most commonly accepted cladistic 
formulation).  But I predict that soon Archaeopteryx will once again be on 
the same side of the line as his kissing cousins, but we want to draw the 
line at a far more stable place so that it will be a long-lasting change.  
And I predict this will happen whether or not BCF is validated in some form 
(although I personally hope that it is).
                  ------Ken
*******************************************
Tim Williams wrote:
> I see what you mean.  Sort of like putting _Archaeopteryx_ into a separate 
> "Class Aves", and separating it from its kissing cousins in the 
> Dromaeosauridae.  Indeed, that wouldn't make any sense.



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp