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

[Ronald Orenstein <ron.orenstein@rogers.com>]

At 11:42 AM 26/10/2006, dinoboygraphics@aol.com wrote:
> What is so hard about accepting that tetratpods are abberrant, 
> primatively land-going sarcopterygian fish?

Nothing, I should think, depending on what you are talking 
about.  There are practical limitations to the use of zoological 
terms in popular parlance -- I can hardly imagine that we would like, 
for instance, a number of international agreements relating to 
fisheries to suddenly have to apply to tetrapods as well!

However, the context in which this discussion arose was another 
matter -- it was a question on the limits of adaptability in a 
certain phylogenetic line that might be imposed by genetic 
constraints.  Under these circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable 
to answer a question such as "why didn't dinosaurs do thus and so" by 
pointing out that there are birds that have, in fact, done exactly 
that.  I realize that you could carry this to ridiculous extremes, 
too -- asking, for example, why there are no fish that swing from 
treetops -- but in the case of birds and dinosaurs, I suspect that 
birds are still morphologically and genetically close enough to their 
dinosaur ancestors (yes, yes, or their archosaur ancestors if you 
think that way) that they should not be ignored when the question is 
one of adaptive range.


Ronald Orenstein
1825 Shady Creek Court
Mississauga, ON L5L 3W2
Canada
905-820-7886
905-569-0116 fax
ron.orenstein@rogers.com