Re: For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"
- From: "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not.to@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:27:16 -0400
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:45:43 -0400, UC wrote
(in article <uranium-1185903943.141566.316300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
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?
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,
No they're not. I, who am NOT a biologist, one as an entirely modern bird,
still flying around, (my sister lives in northern Michigan and a pair of 'em
nest across the river from her house...) and two more as birds which have
entirely modern relatives still flying around.
however, they are classed as Aves alone. i.e., that classification
alone does not entitle them to be called 'birds'.
You, sir, have been had.
The answer is 'NO'.
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
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"
- From: John Harshman
- Re: For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"
- References:
- For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"
- From: John Harshman
- Re: For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"
- From: UC
- For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"
- Prev by Date: Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
- Next by Date: Re: Slightly OT: 400,000,000°C!
- Previous by thread: Re: For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"
- Next by thread: Re: For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
