Re:

[Ronald Orenstein <ornstn@rogers.com>]

At 09:09 PM 06/03/02 +0000, fabian Abu-Nasser wrote:
> just saw the reuters news item on feathers in a non-avian dinosaur.  Does 
> this mean that the original archeopteryx specimen could be from a dinosaur 
> rather than a bird?  If so does it render the name archaeopteryx  obsolete?

Archaeopteryx has long been regarded by most authorities as, in effect, 
both a dinosaur and a bird (especially if birds are, as they certainly seem 
to be, derived dinosaurs).  This has nothing to do with the name 
"Archaeopteryx".  Scientific names do not change because a species' 
classification changes, unless the species is transferred to a different 
genus.  For example, the extinct horned turtle Meiolania was originally 
described as a carnivorous lizard (its name means "lesser ripper").  Once 
it was realized that it was, in fact, a turtle, its classification changed 
- but the name "Meiolania" did not.

Anyway, rules aside, the name "Archaeopteryx", which means "ancient wing", 
remains wholly appropriate.


--
Ronald I. Orenstein                           Phone: (905) 820-7886
International Wildlife Coalition              Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116
1825 Shady Creek Court
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2          mailto:ornstn@rogers.com