[Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to "birds'?

Tue Nov 29 15:16:47 CST 2016

Good points, Francisco.  For Ken to use historical precedent to override 
progress in scientific understanding of life is truly "Trumpian" logic.  
That is, using declarations of what you WANT the answer to be rather 
than what it is, and then supporting your stand with declarations of 
"fact" that are simply not true. Placing capybaras in Pisces or using 
all the interesting classifications of Kosher laws to support use of 
those categories by scientists is equivalent to his erroneous (as shown 
by you) assertion.  However, Trumpian thought is common in Kansas these 
days, I am afraid.  Thank you for defending against slippage into such 
methods.

Mike

On 11/29/2016 2:08 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
> "For thousands of years (or longer), there has long been a 
> classificatory distinction between reptiles and birds" - this 
> statement should not remain uncommented.
>
> Linnaeus 1758 used the term Amphibia for three subgroups Reptiles, 
> Serpentes and Nantes. Reptiles contained turtles, some squamates and 
> frogs, but no snakes. Nantes contained some fishes. It took long until 
> the differences between such groups were understood. The term 
> Reptilium was introduced by Laurenti in 1768 (and still there it 
> contained amphibians, and no turtles). Also Cuvier in the late 1700s 
> did not distinguish between amphibians and reptiles.
>
> Only a few decades before, European scientists had discovered that 
> bats were no birds. So in Europe's 1600s the distinction between birds 
> and reptiles could have been a distinction between bats and frogs. 
> Others used terms such as flying animals and did not necessarily 
> distiguish birds and flying insects. Prior to 1550 natural sciences in 
> Europe were not in a good condition.
>
> Aristotle (350 BC, Greece) presented several groups of vertebrates, 
> birds was one of them. He recognised several partly mixed groups of 
> reptiles and amphibians, and was probably not aware that his 
> definition of mammals would also include some reptiles.
>
> We would also have to consider attempts of animal classification in 
> various cultures prior to global acceptance of standards developed in 
> Europe.
>
> Just some thoughts...
>
> Francisco
>
>
> Am 29.11.2016 um 05:44 schrieb Kenneth Kinman:
>> Hi All,
>>         For thousands of years (or longer), there has long been a 
>> classificatory distinction between reptiles and birds, although 
>> Archaeopteryx eventually showed that birds are clearly reptile 
>> descendants.  This was reflected in both informal and formal 
>> classifications as Classes Reptilia and Aves.  But the more recent 
>> discovery of fossil intermediates has blurred where to draw the line 
>> between reptiles and birds.  And around the same time we had 
>> adherents of phylogenetic nomenclature concluding that both paraphyly 
>> and ranked classifications are somehow "unnatural".  And yet decades 
>> later the PhyloCode is still extremely controversial and perhaps not 
>> likely to be implemented anytime soon (if ever).
>>         In the meantime, even among strict cladists, the meaning or 
>> definition of Class Aves has become increasingly muddled, between 
>> those who would make it a crown group (and thus a synonym of 
>> Neornithes) or alternately based on a group including Archaeopteryx, 
>> crown-group birds, and all of their descendants.
>>         Given this muddled situation, I have long favored expanding 
>> that Class (for birds) to include avian dinosaurs that seem to have 
>> preceded the common ancestor of Archaeopteryx and modern birds.  
>> Given the importance of flight in the concept of "birds", I have come 
>> to the conclusion that asymmetical flight feathers are a primary 
>> evolutionary development in what constitutes a "bird".
>>         Therefore, given the muddled debate whether Aves is the crown 
>> group or anchored instead on Archaeopteryx, I would perhaps suggest 
>> that we recognize a Class Paraves for "birds" rather than a Class 
>> Aves.  The discovery of Archaeopteryx long before all the other 
>> intermediates between reptiles and modern birds long made it a 
>> convenient anchor for a very long time, but it no longer seems to be 
>> so important given all the other forms since discovered (some older) 
>> with adaptations for flight (the asymmetic flight feather being a 
>> primary synamorphy, although even though its gradual developmental 
>> can be problematic given problems inherent in fossil specimens).
>>         Therefore, should we start calling it Class Paraves, or 
>> expand Class Aves to become a synonym of Paraves.  I'm not sure which 
>> would be the best choice.  However, I am convinced that we need to 
>> expand the concept of "birds" as a Class separate from Class 
>> Reptilia.  Whether we call that Class Paraves or an expanded Class 
>> Aves is the question.
>>                                    ----------------------Ken
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.

-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
PO Box 173145
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA

(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu