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

On Jul 31, 2:01 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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


Use Linnaen nomenclature. They are Aves.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... The problem is one of the use of the terms 'birds'and 'dinosaurs' as ... synonyms of 'Aves' and 'Dinosauria'. ... birds aren't dinosaurs, ... exists precisely to refer to whales. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... The loss of all dinosaurs ... I thought you didn't want most dinosaurs to be birds. ... "a member of the class Aves". ... What is class Aves? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... My general impression of you is someone who is exceedingly incompetent. ... If one is writing about birds in an academic paper in which the precise ... "Aves", as that has a precise scientific meaning. ... Why on earth does the fact that one uses the term "Aves" in an academic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chinese feathered dinosaurs, where are the skeptics?
    ... since Dinosauria as a whole includes birds. ... archaeopteryx is not even ancestral to modern birds. ... and restrict Aves to the ... to bird (it is not the common ancestor of aves). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The meaning of "bird" WAS Re: KT boundry event
    ... I've managed to overcome the tempatation to ask him what theory of language and meaning he is using here. ... Not until Pierre Belon and others in the 16th century described the anatomy of birds, which was not used in the initial baptism, did "bird" mean a flying *feathered* organism, and of course subsequent discoveries of flightless birds meant that the extension and intension changed again. ... Linnaeus defined Aves thus: ... Since taxonomists used "Aves" with Linnaeus for their formal classifications, this amounted to the claim that Aves were Dinosaurians (dinosaurs, a term invented in the 1830s by Owen). ...
    (talk.origins)