Re: Ornithopsida (was Re: Dinosauria---Rejected Name?)

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

     I can't speak for Jaime.  However, from my own perspective, any 
sweeping proposal of this kind should be comprehensive (i.e., taking in 
account all taxa, living and fossil).  Otherwise, you risk ending up with a 
classification that  isn't very coherent, and likely to turn into something 
that is just new and more complicated without any obvious benefit.
    It's sort of like having a partial blueprint, getting halfway through 
building a structure, and then discovering you will end up having to do a 
lot of expensive and time-consuming retrofitting when you finally get the 
blueprints finalized.  It's best to have a comprehensive plan at the 
beginning, it is much more efficient, and you will almost certainly end up 
with a lot better results and much less frustration.  It doesn't have to be 
a detailed blueprint, but comprehensive enough to have a good idea of the 
big picture.  At least that has been my experience.
         ------Cheers,  Ken
*****************************************
> From: NJPharris@aol.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:15:54 EST
>
> In a message dated 2/24/02 3:29:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> qilongia@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> >   To what resolution besides purely crown-clade groupings can this offer
> > purely fossil taxa? Life is more than living versus fossil groups, and
> > this phylogeny would be based soley on living groups, often to the
> > detriment of any resolution offered by fossil taxa. I think this point 
> was
> > raised before.
> >
> Eh...I'm afraid I don't see your point.
>
> --Nick P.



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com