Re: the definition of Reptilia

[philidor11@snet.net]

HP Schenk concluded:
<I also think most people can understand that birds came from 
reptiels, but they wouldn't necessarily consider birds to be 
reptiles, any more than they would consider humans to be amphibians 
because we had an ancestor that would have been considered an 
amphibian.>

Yes.
The issue here is the degree to which science should respond 
to the obvious, when what is obvious cannot be demonstrated factually 
incorrect.  A naming convention is not factual, and if scientific 
knowledge and discussion are not to be made unnnecessarily arcane, 
then the intuitive understanding of the public, which starts 
with observation, should be considered as much as possible.

And, contra HP Kinman, the characteristics (I'm using the more 
general word here) that most people would use to distinguish 
birds from lizards are not entirely osteological.  The first 
consideration should be conceptual, rather than solving the problems 
of classifying specific individual animals whose available remains 
are limited.
Jefferson's comment that the differences among major groups should 
be visible to the glance of a traveler on horseback and his hesitation 
at including bones in a classification scheme do provide a balancing 
perspective.

I agree wih him (HP Kinman) that assuring Archie is a bird by 
including him/her in the definition appears to be creating problems. 
 Maybe the definition of a bird is going to have to lose its 
teeth, specifically.  Watching with interest.


___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.