[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [Errors and misunderstandings (was RE: Air sacs in extant non-avian reptiles?)]

I can understand your viewpoint, and I use the term herpetologist elsewhere. However, on a dinosaur list with lots of strict cladists who dislike paraphyletic groups, I avoid the term herpetology here.
Cladistic splintering has all kinds of ramifications, and splintering of a formerly unified "herpetology" may be just one more, but being primarily a mammalogist and bacteriologist this doesn't really concern me much----I have bigger fish to fry (oopppps, I mean, bigger "actinopterygians" to fry). :-)
From: archosaur@usa.net
Reply-To: archosaur@usa.net
To: tholtz@geol.umd.edu
CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: [Errors and misunderstandings (was RE: Air sacs in extant non-avian reptiles?)]
Date: 31 Jul 00 20:41:51 EDT

"Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu> wrote:
> I) Phylogenetic-based classifications are supported by many biologists:
> neontologists and paleontologists alike.  These include botanists,
> mammalogists, lizard workers, ichthyologists, entomologists, >
malacologists, and others who have no particular interest in Dinosauria.

Aw that's not very fair. How come all the other sciences get a formal name?
Why is it just "lizard workers?" Last I checked, herpetology was a valid
scientific field.

Sorry for getting all nit picky, but I do so hate it when the rest of the
reptilia get brushed into a corner in order to make room for their larger
archosaurian cousins.


Jurassosaurus's Reptipage: A page devoted to the study of the reptilia:


Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com