[Taxacom] Class Aves (should it be expanded?)

[Kenneth Kinman]

      I would tend to agree that there is nothing that is necessarily
and inherently cladistic about making Class Aves more inclusive
(although cladistic analysis is still an important consideration, in my
opinion).  However, well-funded dinosaur systematists have come to
increasingly dominate the field of avian paleontology, and a very large
percentage of those are strict cladists (and a major core of extremely
zealous PhyloCodists).  That they use a modern genus of birds (Corvus or
Passer) to anchor a large number of their major theropod dinosaur clades
makes it very apparent why this is so.
       Therefore, they cannot be ignored, and they are frankly a major
impediment to any attempt to maintain any paraphyly whatsoever in the
Tree of Life among tetrapod vertebrates in general.  Believe me, strict
cladists in botany are but a minor irritation in comparison.  
      So maintaining a stable four Class classification of tetrapod
vertebrates is a huge challenge.  The short-sightedness of trying to
completely cladify tetrapods is increasingly apparent to many of us, but
many others (who are better funded) still just don't get it.  It really
seems very similar to pre-2007 warnings to the financial/banking system
that things cannot continue without a severe correction and reevaluation
of priorities.  It's an uphill battle, but well worth it if some of the
damage can still be mitigated in the long term.  Hopefully the majority
of biologists are finally getting tired of a vocal minority pushing us
too far toward the extreme of strictly holophyletic classifications
only.  Whether parts of that vocal minority will eventually participate
in a maximally informative Class Aves remains to be seen.  Sadly, many
of them want to eliminate such taxonomic categories altogether.  While I
understand how they came to hold such extreme views, I believe most of
them are just as short-sighted as some of the old-fashioned
traditionalists they are rebelling against.  A new middle-ground
synthesis is badly needed.              
           ------Ken Kinman      
-----------------------------------------------------
John Grehan wrote:  
There is nothing inherently cladistic about whether or note one makes an
existing taxonomic label more or less inclusive than its current usage. 
John Grehan 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >[mailto:taxacom- 
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman 
>      The problem has unfortunately been that strict cladists 
> (and phylocodists in particular) are instead fixated on >defining Aves
as 
> either formally anchored on genus Archaeopteryx, or >greatly reduced
to a 
> crown group only (thus excluding Archaeopteryx and a lot >of other
birds 
> that clearly had evolved powered flight). Most of them >seem very 
> resistant to applying the name Aves to a more inclusive >clade,
perhaps 
> because they have erected new names for many of the clades >which
might 
> apply to such an expanded Class Aves.   My own proposed >Class Aves 
> approximates either clade Maniraptora or something >intermediate
between 
> it and Eumaniraptora.