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

[Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>]

Mike Nathal writes: 

> As a member of "the public who pays attention to such things,"  I am not 
> turned off by reclassifying Archaeopteryx as a bird or non-bird.

'Bird' isn't a scientific classification - it's a common term. Common terms 
are defined purely by how they're used in day-to-day speach, so definitions 
will change over time whether scientists (or anyone else for that 
matter)want them to or not. 

Take a word like 'decimate' for instance, which is now used to signify 
almost the opposite of its original meaning of 'to kill one in every ten'. 
The word 'appocalypse' originally meant 'to reveal a hidden truth', but has 
a very different meaning these days. 'Rape' originally refered only to 
abduction, as in the painting 'The rape of the Sabines'. It probably comes 
from the same root word as 'raptor', as in 'to carry off'. 

The real question is whether Archaeopteryx 'deserves' to be within Aves (if 
'Aves' is still even in use). This is simply a question of how scientists 
choose to define such a classification, since there is really no such thing 
as a 'natural' grouping. All classification systems are ultimately 
arbitrary. 

> I do however think Pluto should be re-classified as it always was: as a 
> cartoon character.

Or as god of the underworld. I suspect the cartoon dog was called Pluto 
because it liked to bury or dig up things (namely certain osteological 
units). Plutonic rocks are named for the same reason (they form deep below 
ground). 

___________________________________________________________________ 

Dann Pigdon
GIS / Archaeologist              http://geo_cities.com/dannsdinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia             http://heretichides.soffiles.com
___________________________________________________________________