Re: Strange thoughts on PN - was Re: BAD vs. BADD

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Martin Baeker (martin.baeker@tu-bs.de) wrote:

<But isn't it strange that, despite this list being frequented mostly by
stronge believers in PN + cladistics, it is still called the "dinosaur mailing
list", not the "non-avian dinosaur mailing list"?>

  Ironically, this is why birds are not only very cogent to this list, their
discussion increses the traffic on this list by exponents, such that this is a
dinosaur mailing list, not a non-avian dinosaur mailing list. Bird topics are
_encouraged_.

<And doesn't "The complete dinosaur"-book exclude birds almost completely (so,
according to PN, it excludes about 80-90% of all dinosaurs and still calls
itself "complete")>

  The origin of birds is covered to some degree in that book, as in the
Theropoda chapter and in the Anatomy section. Consider also it was published in
1993, during a period of the continuum of the study of dinosaurs that such a
concensus on birds being dinosaurs was not such a "given" that it could be put
into what was designed as a textbook. The same is true for "The Dinosauria,
1990-1992" which only casually addressed avian origins, but did include the
topic in at least Currie's troodont chapter and Ostrom's dromaeosaurid one.
Time marched on, and now not including avian origins and basal groups in a
dinosaur compendium is not only illogical, it's counter productive as this list
should show: increase in traffic when anything theropodan or avian is
discussed. People like seeing, thinking, and reading about birds.

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
http://bitestuff.blogspot.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com