RE: Dinosaur a tecnical term; fish is not (was RE: Fish with milk (Sheesh spinoff))

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mike Taylor wrote:

> It is true that the word "dinosaur" was originally coined for a technical 
> taxonomic content.  But that content, as of the original coinage, most 
> surely did not include birds.

I think Tom is saying that when the word 'dinosaur' was coined it was 
intended to be a taxonomic category.  This is more important than the exact 
content, which has changed over time.

Also, don't forget that this change in content has been a two-way street.  
Not only are birds now included in the Dinosauria, but there are taxa that 
were once described (scientifically) as dinosaurs but which were later 
removed from this group e.g., teratosaurs, hallopodids, revueltosaurs.

(Speaking of non-dinosaurs... the latest Historical Biology has a lot to say 
about many alleged Middle/Late Triassic prosauropods and ornithischians.  
The ranks of non-dinosaurian dinosauriforms appear to expanding courtesy of 
new discoveries, and at the expense of basal Ornithischia.)

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from 
Microsoft Office Live 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/