[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: A load of questions

Stan Friesen wrote:

>Not really.  Chatterjee's finds are still being digested by the
>scientific community, so there are no firm conclusions yet.
>Actually, rather little has been published since the first wave
>of responses after his publication of the description.
>With few exceptions, almost all are very skeptical of his
>identification of this animal as a bird, but as far as I
>know a detailed rebuttal has not yet been published (at least
>I have not seen one, or a reference to one).

No major rebuttal, but one of the most damning comments is Ostrom (1991),
whereby he complains that the skull (the only major part of the skeleton
yet described in Chatterjee 1991) has been reconstructed from the crushed
state after removal from the matrix and thus some placement information was
The description was done from the viewpoint that the specimen *was* a bird.
Most, if not all, the diagnostic features are badly crushed and will not
provide any meaningfull information.


Chatterjee, S. (1991) Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic
bird from Texas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
B332: 277-342

Ostrom, J.H. (1991) Bird in the Bush. Nature 353: 212

It is a well known fact that all the ills of the world can be traced
directly back to the mineralization of the notochord in the Cambrian.