|
Heh, heh. If we accept the phylogeny in the Science
paper on Eudibamus, then Mesosauridae belongs into
Parareptilia/Anapsida, and Reptilia has the same content as Sauropsida, so it
can be (yabbadabbadoo) ignored in favor of the latter, and the debate whether we
should call a bird and/or another dinosaur a reptile can be ended. Like Huxley
said in the 19th century, it is a sauropsid.
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-)
If I have understood the logic underlying "kosher",
then most theropods would not be kosher and most other dinos would be.
B-)
I very strongly doubt, however, that a word for
"reptile" or anything similar exists in Biblical Hebrew and therefore in the
prescriptions on what is kosher...
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 6:40
PM
Subject: Kosher dinos
I just came to a humorous realization. If
birds are dinosaurs, then the debate over whether dinsoaurs are kosher has
ended. (No, this is not a popular debate) Up until now, dinosaurs
have been guaged against the mammal kosher guidelines (cloven hooves and
chewing of cud), but seeing as no one took into account the evolutionary
relationships, everyone thought dinos were unkosher. But the conundrum
now is that no reptile is kosher. So when is a bird not a reptile?
Or better yet, when is a dinsoaur not a reptile?
Looks like cladistics won't affect just the
scientific community!
Peace out, Demetrios Vital
P.S. I wouldn't lose sleep over this if you
eat Kosher (I don't eat Kosher, BTW).
|