Comments: 11
Eriorguez [2011-07-29 18:29:32 +0000 UTC]
I would say Deinonychosaurs were Archaeopteryforms all this time, due to priority and all that. Not to mention that the critter which has been used as the "first bird" for 150 years shouldn't be taken out of there just because Scansors exist and its group is larger that previously though. After all, the definition of birds as Passer+Archaeopteryx remains there.
All in all, it is just subjective naming. And Xu making a HORRIBLE choice that will hurt how bird evolution is understood by laypeople. Expect creationist bull**** flying around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yoult In reply to Eriorguez [2011-07-29 22:45:50 +0000 UTC]
I think there can't be a sharp line between Dinosaurs and Birds, the borders are fluxionary.
If the name is either Archaeopteryformes or Deinonychosauria isn't much of a concern I think because nearly related families have always to wear the name of the other (like Megalosaurus in the Spinosauroidea-group).
I also wasn't surprised that Archaeopteryx is nearly related to the Deinonychosauria, it was obviously all the time.
You're right with the subjective naming.
We should hope that the Xiaotingia won't become to prominent by laypeople and creationists, they simply don't understand the mechanisms od evolution and the grades of relation. The name maybe helps, because Xiaotingia is way stranger for western speakers than Archaeopteryx.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yoult In reply to Nesihonsu [2011-07-29 17:40:59 +0000 UTC]
Thank you, it's a pleasure!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0