|
Post by bowheadwhale on Sept 27, 2011 19:56:38 GMT
I wish my turn will come someday, then.
|
|
|
Post by crankydinosaur on Oct 11, 2011 23:05:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Nov 9, 2011 19:20:42 GMT
Pshaw! Reptiles (exclusive of mammals and birds) are an unnatural group and therefore cheating. As for mammal numbers, the number of recorded mammals species is inflated by our own pro-mammal bias and the more recent vintage of the mammal fossils. I am content to argue that if we were able to do a species survey of the dinosauria that was complete, and included the birds as it is proper to do so, their numbers would rival if not surpass that of the fuzzies. He never said to exclude reptiles--in which case, it is indeed a natural group. Fish, on the other hand, is not (unless you include all descendants, including the descendants of the lobefins...). I think this argument is a little pointless. It's like arguing the nature of the tomato: vegetable or fruit? Everyone knows tomatoes are botanically fruits, like cucombers and peas (they are the plant parts that include the seeds), yet they are gastronomically vegetables, because they lack sugar. What is the point of such an argument? We still all eat tomatoes in pizzas and salads and nobody will exclude them from their diets because they are not "botanically" vegetables. Or it's like arguing about Pluto being a planet or not. The fact Pluto is not a planet like the others doesn't mean Pluto got out of our solar system! Pluto is still turning around the sun beind Neptuno and never stopped existing for the fact of being called a different name. See what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by crypto1 on Nov 12, 2011 14:15:15 GMT
How is this? Yes, looking back I left out some pretty obvious ones. I, however, deliberately tried to avoid species that were just bigger versions of modern animals, so that is why no Gigantopithecus, Cave Bear, Dire Wolf, Mega Lion, etc., unless they were significantly differant looking, like Arctodus.... Gigantopithecus, of course, is not a "bigger version" of any of the modern primates, but a rather distinctive genus and different species. Same goes with these other megafauna. Whether something appears (phenotypically) different is hardly a great criteria.
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Nov 15, 2011 20:11:59 GMT
How is this? Yes, looking back I left out some pretty obvious ones. I, however, deliberately tried to avoid species that were just bigger versions of modern animals, so that is why no Gigantopithecus, Cave Bear, Dire Wolf, Mega Lion, etc., unless they were significantly differant looking, like Arctodus.... Gigantopithecus, of course, is not a "bigger version" of any of the modern primates, but a rather distinctive genus and different species. Same goes with these other megafauna. Whether something appears (phenotypically) different is hardly a great criteria. Cave Bear was not just an oversize version of the brown bear either. Its teeth were different, as they were even more adapted to vegetarian diets than the brown bear we know. And its body shape was not entirely the same either.
|
|