RE: small dinosaurs with feathers

[Jura <archosaur@reptilis.net>]

> 
>"Jura" wrote:
>
>> With very few exceptions, most of the scenarios I have seen where birds
>> are referred to as theropods/dinosaurs, have always been for political
>> reasons only. 
>
>With all due respect, this assertion is plain nonsense.  Stephan Pickering
>is perfectly correct on one point: in a phylogenetic context, birds
>represent a monophyletic subset of theropod dinosaurs, and therefore birds
>*are* dinosaurs.  Just as mammals are a subset of cynodont therapsids, and
>insects are a subset of uniramian arthropods.  I could go on, but we all
>have better things to do than rake over these particular coals.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with most of what you said (especially the last bit), but I must 
disagree with the first point. The statement that birds are called living 
dinosaurs simply for it's eye catching appeal, is far from nonsense. When 
reading Heresies or any of GSP, or Norell's work, one routinely reads on how 
birds are living dinosaurs and how "amazing" and "impressive" it is to think 
that the sparrow sitting outside one's window is "the same kind of animal" as 
_T.rex_. 

Never does one read on how "amazing" or "incredible" it is to think that we, as 
mammals, are the "same kind of animals" as dinocephalians, or _Dimetrodon_, 
even though the reasoning is exactly the same.

I'm sure if dinosaurs hadn't sparked the curiosity of humans as much as they 
did, the relationship (and semantics) of birds and dinos would probably not 
even come up as an issue. Apparently knowing that birds descended from some of 
the largest, and strangest creatures ever to have roamed the earth, is reason 
enough to flaunt the "birds are living dinosaurs" statement around, and make 
birds "uber cool."

Scientifically the reference to birds as living dinosaurs rarely seems to come 
up, usually because there is no reason to bring it up. In the general public 
though, one finds reference to it every time dinosaurs are mentioned (and many 
of the times birds are mentioned).

Perhaps referring to it as political might have been misleading (and might even 
have left a few with a bad taste in their mouths). I simply meant that this 
statement of: "birds are living dinosaurs" is only used to grab the attention 
of the public, and perhaps change the public's perception of dinosaurs in 
general. It has shock value, but nothing more.

Jura

======================================================

"I am impressed by the fact that we know less about many modern [reptile] types 
than we do of many fossil groups." 
- Alfred S. Romer  Osteology of the Reptiles

http://reptilis.net