RE: Archosaur Origins...was:MESENOSAURUS ERRATA

["Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@home.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Jaime A. Headden
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 3:26 AM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Subject: Re: Archosaur Origins...was:MESENOSAURUS ERRATA

The point here is that birds _are_ dinosaurs. Escaping this is impossible.
This is an event
horizon for one of the biggest singularities in paleontology, similar to the
mammal line. Basing
groups on only living membership, regardless of the fossil diversity or the
sense of priority,
which George should be aware of given his DGL. What I and others note is
that redefining the group
of archosaurs as Aves and then applying the term "bird" to this, both of
which George has
suggested doing, is based on a judgement of "hat seems right", and that's an
aesthetic statement.
The idea of *Apatosaurus* as a four-legged bird is not just wrong, it defies
the definition of
bird, both aesthetic and historically actual. George is welcome to use
another term, but the
concept of a "bird" has been set in stone for many thousands of years as
feathery, winged and
warmblooded. <<

Therefore science must stop because a term has been set in 'stone'! Don't
try and change things! So what ever you do, don't change things.
Just because of a term has been used for centuries does NOT mean that term
can be redefined.


>>These animals descended through cold-blooded, featherless, and unwinged
animals, some
which were quadrupedal, and this is an evolutionary tract. "Bird" remains
unchanged. I thus do not
see this as informing the public as much as trying to ram a variable and an
aesthetic concept down
the public's throat.<<

That's right, the public doesn't need to be educated or informed. Leave them
ALONE! Don't put feathers on dinosaurs because the public doesn't believe
it. And to a lot of them Mammoths are dinosaurs.

>>George also wrote:

<I see nothing contradictory in the system I outlined. What could be
simpler? If it's more closely
related to modern birds than to any other animals, why not call it a bird
(or, if you like, bird
sensu lato)?>

  Because the terms Dinosauria and Ornithosuchia and Avemetatarsalia, etc.,
have priority. <<

Eh? But doesn't Romer and Huene have priority over all that? That was set
way back when when there wasn't an Avemetatarsalia and their work has
priority.

>>Their
structure is defined. I see no reason to opt for a more inclusive Aves based
on modern birds, when
other terms are available.<<

Wait a minute, you just said don't change things, and now your saying go
ahead?


 >>What I see is the reluctance [forgive me if I'm wrong] to calling birds
dinosaurs, again based on an aesthetic concept of dinosaurs as traditional
"reptiles", perhaps.
This only means working on the Reptilia group.... Linnaean definitions
should be forgiven and
dropped from the annals of biology and taxonomy unless as an historical
footnote, which I'm afraid
may be the delegation of an otherwise brilliant man. He worked in the system
he "beleived" in, his
focus just didn't include evolution, and the sad truth is, he was wrong.

  Forgive me for being harsh,<

My name is Tracy, and I'm a Linnaenist. I have no problem using the names
that have been coin'd by using the Linnaean system, many of which are used
in Clades. One of the main things cladist do is put new names inbetween the
old set in stone Linnaean system, but wait! Just because it's the Linnaean
system and it was set in stone we can't use it because of the new CRAM IT
DOWN YOUR THROAT Cladistist. Its ok to cram it down everyone's throat? But
try and change BIRDS...


Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074