Re: BCF (was New Article in Experimental Zoology)

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/26/02 1:37:18 PM EST, qilongia@yahoo.com writes:

<< Time to revise our concept of what a "bird" is.>
 
   Oh, no. This would be a very BAD idea.
 
   In the history of bad ideas, this would be near the very top. Next to
 seeing what would happen if you flew a few planes into a pair of
 buildings.
 
   The entire world has a majority concept of what birds, or vögeln,
 ptitsi, ornithoi, etc., are... and sauropods frankly do not cut the cake.
 Nor do *Agilisaurus* or *Eoraptor*, etc. I like the idea of bird-lke
 anatomy in taxonomy, it's fun, and would favor Ornithotarsi, but the word
 "bird" and all its incarnations has, to my knowledge, a very applied and
 structured concept. Using the word "bird" or it's incarnations to
 systematically include non-birds would be a horrible path to walk. Very
 few would follow, as I see the set up. And you would be VERY hard-pushed
 to get the public to conform. No, science is not for the public to decide,
 I do know this, but in the vein applied above by George, it would be one
 of the worst things to do in this day and age of advancement to -- almost
 allegorically -- call a sauropod a bird. >>

What you're saying is that we've had a limited idea of what a bird is since 
time immemorial, so we should enshrine this grievous error rather than 
correct it. Where's the progress?

My last post on this subject today, as I'm approaching my daily quota.