Re: Martin 2004 critique (somewhat lengthy)

[Martin Baeker <martin.baeker@tu-bs.de>]

[...]

> > But the *cladistic definition* of birds as
> > dinosaurs is surely not the issue here.
> 
> Please don't confuse cladistics ( = phylogenetic systematics = the way how to
> conduct phylogenetics as a science) with phylogenetic nomenclature (the way
> how to define clade names so they can be applied to phylogenetic trees,
> _regardless of how those trees were arrived at_).

My bad - I apologize for the confusion this has caused on what I wanted to 
say. So I will write down 100 times:

Cladistics is not phylogenetic nomenclature!

> 
> > The issue at hand is whether birds are dinosaurs *phylogenetically*.
> 
> This can only decided if Dinosauria has _some_ phylogenetic definition.
Yes. My point was that this definition has to be sensible i.e.,
what we should do is 
to find the definition that agrees with what has been called a dinosaur 
*so far*, e.g. Megalosaurus and Iguanodon should be in, crocodyles should 
be out etc. 

And then we should use some method (cladistics, time travel, whatever) to 
find out whether in this definition birds are dinosaurs. But to say birds 
are dinosaurs *by definition* surely is not helpful.


                   Priv.-Doz. Dr. Martin BÃker
                   Institut fÃr Werkstoffe
                   Langer Kamp 8
                   38106 Braunschweig
                   Germany
                   Tel.: 00-49-531-391-3073                      
                   Fax   00-49-531-391-3058
                   e-mail <martin.baeker@tu-bs.de>