Re: Avian stem-group (was: BCF)

[John Conway <john_conway@mac.com>]

On Monday, August 26, 2002, at 06:09  PM, Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> ....it is an annoying historical accident that dinosaurs were
> originally classified as reptiles. They should have been classified as 
> birds,
> since they actually share more features with birds than they do with 
> reptiles
> (people just didn't know how to classify things in those days). Now we 
> have
> to fight a century and a half of dinosaurs-as-reptiles tradition. Note 
> also
> that dinosaur footprints were called bird footprints well before they 
> were
> called anything else.

Why do we have to slot extinct animals into pre-existing named groups? 
It seems strange to me; shoehorning everything into the groups that 
were named first, even if it grossly distorts the original intent. 
Maybe some extinct groups should stand on their own merits (and fame).

The phylogenetic system will have a greater chance if it sticks close 
to common sense. I'm happy with my current concept of birds (Archie + 
Neorniths), shoehorning the rest of the Dinosauria in there won't make 
things any clearer. I'm know many other people feel the same way, as it 
fits well with historical concepts of Aves.


John Conway, Palaeoartist

"All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

Protosite: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/
Systematic ramblings: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/phylogenetic/