Neither Bird Nor Animal...

Biddybot · Post by **Biddybot** » 2003-02-16 11:28am

The National Geographic channel is on TV as I type this and a few moments ago I heard it again...a guy distinguishing between birds and animals while he talks about kiwis (the avian variety

). What the heck gives here? Since when are birds NOT animals? I have heard this odd--what seems to me--unneccessary distinction made more and more over the years. Makes me wonder what the heck is being taught in school these days. Can anyone explain why anyone would say such a thing? I just find it very puzzling, especially when I hear it on a 'science' show...

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-16 11:32am

You will need to provide a link if you want an intelligent discussion. Your vague references to what some guy said is unacceptable.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-16 11:33am

Perhaps he meant "birds and other animals."

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-02-16 11:35am

I think it's a biblical thing.
People just like to divide the world into 3 realms - the aquatic (fish); the terrestrial (beasts) and the aerial (birds). It's totally non-scientific and idiotic, but it happens a lot.

Biddybot · Post by **Biddybot** » 2003-02-16 11:42am

The only link I can provide is on TV right now...the GEO channel, a show called 'Living Wild', about nocturnal animals in New Zealand. A talking head guy giving some background on kiwis distinctly said "...(the kiwi) was neither bird nor animal..." While I admire his grammatical accuracy, the distinction he makes does baffle me. I noted it because it's an oddity I come across in books and hear several times a year and always mentally correct. Sometimes I think what's being meant is 'mammal' not 'animal'.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-02-16 11:50am

Which is crap of course, because the Kiwi is a bird.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-02-16 12:00pm

The very first system of biological taxonomy in the Western world was reated by one of the ancient Greek philosophers-don't remeber which one, but I want to say Socrates. Don't take my word for it, though.

Anyway, this system classifed animals by the way they moved-either walking, swimming, or flying. It's been superceded by many other systems since then, but it's influence is still so great that many divide the animal kingdom into three groups-beasts, fish, and birds.

Biddybot · Post by **Biddybot** » 2003-02-16 12:02pm

I admit I'm grasping with the mammal bit. Thought it might apply here because, let's face it, a kiwi is such an odd-looking bird with hairy-appearing plumage...I've had a person think one of my white Silky chickens was a rabbit, so I can sort of see the confusion...a little...tiny bit...maybe... (Okay, that person was rock-stupid, I admit it!)

On the other hand, your biblical reference may well have something to it. The other similar, next most common distinction I've heard is 'animals and fish'.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-02-16 12:06pm

Well, 'beast' usualyl refers to mammal - the classical (sorry, can't tell Greek from Latin from anything else) word Therian literally means beast but in science means mammal.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS