"Class" Ceratopsia

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

Thomas,
     I'm neither a strict cladist nor a strict eclecticist ("gradist"), so 
morphological gaps are just one of many things I look at when classifying.  
Clearly in the case of Aves (birds), the gap between them and known 
maniraptors (non-avian) has shrunk significantly.
    For a variety of reasons, I use the cladistic definition of Aves 
(birds), using Archaeopteryx to anchor it (just as has been done since the 
1860's).  In this case, anchoring actually works and promotes stability and 
effective communication.  But this doesn't mean I advocate widespread 
anchoring or the PhylloCode.
     As for putting relationships "into context", I think saying birds are 
dinosaur descendants is sufficient.  And in my formal classifications, I 
explicitly show this context with my {{Aves}} marker within Reptilia (not to 
mention the appropriate coding).  Granted, typical eclectic classifications 
don't do this explicitly, and I criticize them for that (not for the less 
important issue of paraphyly).
              ---Ken
P.S.  I think it was Michael Benton (in his Vertebrate Paleontology book) 
who did use similar type markers in his classification of vertebrates.  Very 
helpful!!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com