▁no ▁special ▁relationship ▁to ▁each ▁other . ▁As ▁such , ▁the ▁Din osa uria ▁was ▁no ▁longer ▁seen ▁as ▁a ▁scientific ▁grouping , ▁and ▁" din osa ur " ▁was ▁reduced ▁to ▁being ▁a ▁popular ▁term , ▁without ▁scientific ▁meaning . ▁This ▁became ▁the ▁standard ▁interpretation ▁throughout ▁much ▁of ▁the ▁tw enti eth ▁century .< ref > R omer ▁A . S . ▁ 1 9 5 6 . ▁O ste ology ▁of ▁the ▁Re pt iles . ▁Chicago : ▁University ▁Chicago . ▁ 7 7 2 ▁p .</ ref > ▁ ▁This ▁changed ▁in ▁ 1 9 7 4 , ▁when ▁Bak ker ▁and ▁Peter ▁Gal ton ▁published ▁a ▁paper ▁in ▁Nature , ▁arg uing ▁that ▁not ▁only ▁were ▁din osa urs ▁a ▁natural ▁mon oph y let ic ▁group , ▁but ▁that ▁they ▁should ▁be ▁raised ▁to ▁the ▁status ▁of ▁a ▁new ▁class , ▁which ▁would ▁also ▁contain ▁birds . ▁Although ▁initially ▁this ▁rev ival ▁of ▁din osa ur ▁mon oph y ly ▁was ▁controvers ial , ▁the ▁idea ▁did ▁gain ▁accept ance , ▁and ▁since ▁the ▁rise ▁of ▁cl ad istic ▁method ology , ▁it ▁has ▁been ▁nearly ▁univers ally ▁supported . ▁The ▁raising ▁of ▁the ▁Din osa uria ▁to ▁class ▁rank ▁found ▁less ▁support , ▁perhaps ▁largely ▁due ▁to ▁ ▁increasing ▁use ▁of ▁ph y log en etic ▁tax onomy ▁among ▁verte br ate ▁p ala e ont olog ists , ▁in ▁which ▁ranks ▁are ▁entirely ▁abandoned . ▁▁ ▁W arm - blo oded ness ▁and ▁activity ▁levels ▁▁