Re: BAD vs. BADD (was: Re: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions)

[Jamie Stearns <stearns5@cox.net>]

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents to this...

Anyway, I honestly don't see the point of arbitrarily separating "birds" 
from "dinosaurs."

Basically, the main reasons for doing so (aside from Feduccia and company's 
arguments) appear to be:
a) Birds are so different from non-avian dinosaurs that they should be 
placed in a different category, regardless of evolutionary relationships.
b) Birds are not part of the group that people generally perceive as 
"dinosaurs" and thus should not be considered dinosaurs.
c) Using the term "non-avian dinosaurs" is confusing.
(If I've missed any, please tell me.)

Neither of these really seems to hold much water, at least to me.
a) This statement is somewhat hypocritical. Going from what Holtz said 
earlier, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, and modern 
birds have more in common than Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, Apatosaurus, 
Parasaurolophus, Triceratops and Stegosaurus do. If birds can't be 
considered dinosaurs, then we might as well break up Dinosauria entirely.
b) As I've said before, the general public holds several misconceptions 
regarding dinosaurs. Generally their definition of Dinosauria includes 
things like pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and Dimetrodon, none of 
which are considered dinosaurs at present. In addition, most people would 
probably think Caudipteryx and Microraptor were birds if they saw 
reconstructions of them and weren't told anything about what the animals 
actually were. (I'm just guessing here though)
c) That term isn't really all that confusing to me. In my opinion, using 
terms like "non-mammalian therapsid" to refer to Cynognathus or 
"non-therapsid synapsid" for Dimetrodon is perfectly acceptable because it 
more accurately describes the animals. In addition, simply calling 
Tyrannosaurus a dinosaur rather than specifically using "non-avian dinosaur" 
is also acceptable because few people would think T. rex was a bird.

"Non-tetrapod fish" sounds a bit ridiculous to me, though...