Re: smallest ANCIENT non-bird dinosaur - was what I was asking

[John Conway <john.a.conway@gmail.com>]

dinoboygraphics@aol.com wrote:
> Mike Keesey wrote: 
> > If you use it for the crown group, then it's definitely not a bird,
> > but there are many Mesozoic non-birds smaller than _Microraptor_.
>
> Let me take a moment to endorse this particular definition.  It is 
> problematic to to define Archaeopteryx into birds a priori and doing so 
> has repeatedly resulted in people extrapolating derived crown-group 
> features and behavior back to all "birds".

But wait--the scientific community doesn't get to define vernacular 
terms anyhow. No one's talking about defining the actual term "bird" 
scientifically. We're talking about "aves", which will never match 
vernacular usage of "bird" no matter how much we argue about it (we 
should probably give up). Don't try to tell me not to call Hesperornis a 
bird--the idea's laughable--but if it falls outside aves, who cares really?

--
Palaeontography: http://palaeo.jconway.co.uk