Re: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

I didn't want to give this a separate reply, having posted rather much in 
the last few days... but...

> I think Pterosaurs should be considered dinosaurs.
> They're Arco-(or is in sinclair?) saurs, we don't know
> their origions yet. No, they've never been classified
> as Dinosauria but I think it's time.

The other way around: it's too late. Far too late. Now we have phylogenetic 
nomenclature, and Dinosauria has two definitions that both apply to a clade 
that excludes the pterosaurs.

(Archosauria it is.)

> They are terrible,

I disagree. But then, some of them fit the "fearfully great" part that the 
first half of "Dinosauria" actually means.

> they are reptiles.

1. Not if I can help it.
2. Sauria is the lizards, and just the lizards.

> I also am of the mind that we should do away with the
> ugly word Pterosaur and replace it with Pterodactyl.

That might be feasible, but I doubt it.

> My opinion of a misconception, that will get me lots
> of good disagreement on this list, is that Birds are
> dinosaurs. NOT. Decended from yes, one could argue
> based on nomenclature symantics that it is so but I
> think we have to draw the line somewhere.

No, we don't have to. We can entirely avoid this subjective decision, 
without losing anything in the process.

> I and some of my buds collect dinosaur comic covers
> and we don't include tweedy.

May I suggest you are actually only collecting comics about extinct 
dinosaurs? As in, dead ones? :-)