[Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to "birds'?

[John Grehan]

Better to leave out the US centered political innuendo please. Obfuscates
clarity just as much as 'Clintonian' thought.

John Grehan

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>