[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