[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Question(s) about Cladistics and PhyloCode
David Marjanovic wrote:
I'm talking of _our_ vernacular concept. We get the chance to approximate
the scientific concept to our vernacular one, so why not do it?
If a phylogeny recovers dromaeosaurids, troodontids, oviraptorosaurs, etc,
as closer to modern birds than is _Archaeopteryx_, then what's the problem
with stretching Aves to include these maniraptorans? After all, if these
theropods have feathers, wings and an endothermic metabolism, and they are
descended from flying animals - why wouldn't they fit the "approximate"
vernacular definition of "bird"? I don't know what Julius Caesar would have
said, but even the BANDits are regarding _Microraptor_ and _Caudipteryx_ as
"birds". (The BANDits, of course, have their own motives for doing so, so
I'm not embracing their arguments.)
Rather lose one than lose almost all (crown-group) or gain *Achillobator*
(Archie node, if we're unlucky).
I have no problem regarding _Achillobator_ as a "bird" if it's (a) included
in the clade bounded by _Archaeopteryx_ and _Passer_, or (b) secondarily
flightless.
Cheers
Tim