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

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> 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?

I cannot imagine this working, because Aves _means_ "birds", and people know 
it. (Especially if they speak Spanish or Portuguese.)

It's _simply not true_ that the scientific community doesn't get to define 
vernacular terms. When I tell people that "salamander" and "lizard" are 
non-overlapping categories, they believe me. When people are told that 
*Eohippus* and even *Propalaeotherium* (the Messel horselet) are horses, 
while *Thoatherium* is not one, most of them eat it up. When people are told 
that *Ambulocetus* and *Pakicetus* are whales, walking whales, most of them 
accept it as a revealed fact (...and most of those who don't accept this 
already believe in their own set of... revealed... I stop here).

On the other hand, if we move the meaning of a vernacular term too quickly, 
we can expect trouble. Restricting Aves to the crown-group would IMHO be 
just such a move.