Yes they would make a better example purely from the point of view of taxonomy. If you look at the phylogeny of vertebrates, bats and birds do constitute monophyletic clades. "Fish" and "reptiles" do not they are not a true grouping they are paraphyletic.
-
Well, Bats and Birds are VERY MUCH farther apart on the evolutionary scale than are reptiles and fish. In some cases the actual line of evolution goes from fish to amphibian to reptile whereas birds are probably closer to the reptile than the bat! There were birds LONG before their were mammals.
-
They would definitely be a better example. There are still better examples. A pterodactyl and a bat, for example. Reptiles and fish didn't evovle convergently except maybe in the example of an ichythyosuarus which is a reptile that resembles a dolphin.
-
I think bats and birds. The wing of a bat and the wing of a bird are an excellent example of convergent evolution. Bats are distantly related to birds and the wings of both evolved independently.