Re: For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"

On Jul 31, 10:45 am, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 31, 12:59 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

[I know. Why intentionally start another interminable UC thread? Hey,
some of us enjoy poking him. If that's not your cup of tea, move along.]

Here, because you offered, is a thread to discuss the meaning of the
word "bird". Specifically, we all want to know how you tell whether
something (especially a fossil) is a bird or not, and how you have
determined what those criteria are.

This may take a little work on your part. Several animals commonly
considered to be birds have been mentioned, but you claim to know
nothing about them. To clarify your position, you must first learn about
these animals, so ye may judge them. Google is your friend.

Here is a sampling that should be good enough for our purposes. Please
evaluate as many as you can. Are they birds, or not birds? Why?

Archaeopteryx
Confuciusornis
Sinornis
Hesperornis
Ichthyornis
Vegavis
Presbyornis
Messelastur
Anas velox
Ciconia maltha
Pandion haliaetus, specifically those from the Oligocene of Egypt and
Miocene of North America.
Dinornis

They already have names, quite nice ones, too. I don't want to
interfere. They are are classed as Aves, under which modern forms
called 'birds' are included. Since these are all archaic species,
however, they are classed as Aves alone. i.e., that classification
alone does not entitle them to be called 'birds'.

The answer is 'NO'.

Some of those may have existed less than 2mya, which is your cutoff.
If so that makes them birds according to you. So then why aren't
these birds? Do some research. Even by your bizarre standards he
slipped a few birds into the list had you bothered to find out
anything about them.

Jason

.

Relevant Pages