Re: Question(s) about Cladistics and PhyloCode

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

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