> "Bird", if the Mayr et al study is worth anything,
> is a form taxon with no phylogenetic merit if
> one includes the fossil record,
You're way too pessimistic :-)
Nahhh, I mean the vernacular term alright. Not
"avian", "bird". Basically the "fundament" for BCF - a
confusion between the form taxon and the taxon. I'm
completely optimistic that much if not most of Aves
will turn out a proper clade (because most of Aves
already IS - Neornithes). But critters like Rahonavis
were and still are overused by BCF proponents and the
likes, and media nerds, to expand "bird" to the
breaking point and beyond. "Bird" (as it's not a
scientific term) has come to mean "flying feathered
'reptiles'", and suggesting Birds = Aves runs one into
all sorts of trouble.