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

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

David Marjanovic writes: 

> From: "Dann Pigdon" <dannj@alphalink.com.au>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:06 AM 
>
> > 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.
>
> There is of course such a thing as a natural grouping -- clades really 
> exist --, but of course how we name them and which ones we name is 
> arbitrary, so your point stands. 

Ultimately there is really only one 'natural' group - 'life' (assuming it 
arose just once on this planet). Any groupings smaller than that are just a 
series of arbitrary lines separating 'this' from 'that' (shoe-horn sold 
separately). 

___________________________________________________________________ 

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