Re: birds and avians again

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Eric Lurio (ELurio@aol.com) wrote:

<Well, why not continue to use the prefixes proto- and para- to indicate close 
releations that are
not *exactly* "kosher?" The use of terms "therapsid paramammal" for the likes 
of the trytlodonts,
or protomammal for permian and early triassic cynodonts have been used in 
popular works on the
subject for decades, and if you think about it calling creteceous maniraptors 
"parabirds" would be
far more instructive and accurate than calling them "dinosaurs.">

proto- and para- have conceptual boundaries. Para, as in forms that are next 
to, i.e., similar in
general, and perhaps even related to, but generally using the first concept: 
similar. Proto, as in
forms that are predative to a set group. I'd call sphenacodonts paramammalian, 
perhaps, and
tritylodonts protomammals. Paul used protodinosaur for lagosuchs, and one can 
opt for
paradinosaurs for a more primitive group of perhaps "croc-like" archosaurs that 
are not
crurotarsan.

I also wrote:

<<Pisces has not been used as a formal group I beleive, for a century or so...>>

to which Eric Lurio (ELurio@aol.com) also replied:

<Half a Century, I got some books that date from the early 1960s that have 
them. >

  This is true, and I beleive David Marjanovic also cited some examples. My 
mistake.

=====
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