Re: Question(s) about Cladistics and PhyloCode

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> I much prefer this definition of Aves to Gauthier's, in which Aves
> is much less inclusive and limited to the crown-group.

Oh, so do I.

> Who cares?  :-)  You can't blame evolution for our short-sighted
> definitions.

But I can blame us for not noticing where the unstable areas in the tree 
are.

> If _Buitreraptor_ falls inside the group bounded by
> _Archaeopteryx_ and _Passer_, then it's a member of Aves.  Whether one
> chooses to call _Buitreraptor_ (or even _Archaeopteryx_) a "bird" is
> subjective, given that "bird" is an imprecise term.

We won't escape "birds" being equated with "Aves". The Latin word for 
"birds" _is_ "aves", and this persists in Spanish and Portuguese. People 
will keep misusing Aves unless it approximates the concept of "birds". The 
simplest way to avoid this problem, IMHO, is to give Aves a stem-based 
definition with dromaeosaurids, troodontids, oviraptorosaurs etc. as 
external anchors.