Re:Response to Gould?

["Zoe Heraklides" <z_heraklides@hotmail.com>]

ELurio@aol.com writes:

> Ho-kaaaaaay...here we go again with the "elephants are fish" argument!
> Elephants are NOT fish and Birds are NOT Dinosaurs. I will now run for 
> cover.

Yes, birds ARE dinosaurs, just as they are archosaurs, diapsids and 
amniotes.  That is a phylogenetic reality (at least based on abundant 
evidence).  Elephants are therapsids, just as they are synapsids and 
amniotes.  It is whether "birds" should be called dinosaurs which is the 
casus bellus here.  I don't think paleontologists are advocating that 
people, in everyday vernacular usage, should abandon the noun "bird" in 
favor of "dinosaur".  That's silly.  To claim that this is what 
paleontologists are advocating is a misrepresentation of their views, with a 
pinch of mischief added to the mix.

Nevertheless, birds do seem to be descended from dinosaurs, and as such, 
must be regarded as dinosaurs.  Elephants did descend from some type of 
fish.  The "fishes" represent several clades of (primitively)aquatic 
vertebrates; in a sense, the fishes are the non-tetrapod vertebrates.  The 
term "fish" is phylogenetically meaningless; the term "vertebrate" is more 
appropriate in this context.  Elephants are vertebrates?  I can live with 
that!  ;-)

ZH


_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com