Cultistofvertigo

Hi!

I think I'll take this on your user page rather than in the Dinosaur talk page. Hopefully it will be a bit less noisy.

Non of the editors doubt that birds descend from dinosaurs. It is very well established, actually has been since the work of Thomas Huxley in the 1870s. Whatever we discuss, we should keep in mind we all all agree on that. That only leave a purely semantic question of whether birds are dinosaurs or have evolved from them. Both of these statements are true, in that the expressed phylogeny is identical. The only differences is that the first tresses the phyllogenetical continuity, the other the anatomic and ecological distinctness of birds relative to their ancestors.

Whether one or the other way of expression is used depend on whether the aim is phylogeny or classification. Do not make the mistake or thinking that the two are the same. True, classification do build on phylogeny, but classification is a practical endeavor. Practicality has lead to the article to be about dinosaurs in the traditional sense, as the birds really is an unusual group. Filling the article with discussions on birdsong, plumage and anatomical adaptions to different styles of flight between discussions of stratigraphy, dermal armour, teeth and hipbones would not make it better. Thus, the article is really about dinosaurs in the traditional sense, and the taxobox reflects this. It does however not show dinosaurs as extinct, you will notice a thinner line (representing birds) continuing until today. After all, birds do only represent a narrow subset of dinosaurs, and a very aberrant one at that. This is reflected in the taxobox. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)