Re: dinosaur flatware

[pwillis@ozemail.com.au (Paul Willis)]

>In a message dated 96-01-10 21:29:13 EST, Dinogeorge@aol.com writes:
>
>>In a message dated 96-01-10 18:03:44 EST, kseo@BBN.COM (Karen Seo) writes:
>>
>>>I'm aware the word dinosaur is mis-used but ignorant of the correct
>>>usage.  So just for the record, what is the definition for "dinosaur"?
>>
>>The simplest definition of a dinosaur is cladistic (amazingly enough): a
>>dinosaur is any archosaur descended from the common ancestor of the genera
>>_Megalosaurus_ and _Iguanodon_, which coincidentally are the first two
>>dinosaur genera to be scientifically described. This set of animals includes
>>a wide variety of creatures, even modern birds.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe into the phrase "first two dinosaur genera to be scientifically
>described" I should insert the qualifying phrase "not counting a number of
>extant birds"...


While this definition may be squeaky clean for the hard-core cladist, it is
not particularly useful. If I find animal X, this definition of a dinosaur
in no way allows me to deterrimine if my animal is or is not a dinosaur.
Isn't it more pragmatic to give synapomorphies as part of the definition of
a particular clade?

Cheers, Paul

pwillis@ozemail.com.au