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


In a message dated 95-12-06 14:22:28 EST, martz@holly.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey
Martz) writes:

> I'm still of the opinions that the arboreal origin of birds is no more 
>likely than the crusorial theory.  SImple, plausible sounding theories 
>founded on no more fossil evidence than their competetors are to be 
>approached carefully. If one was to speculate about how a flying animal 
>might delevelop wings, lengthening the fingers and stretching 
>skin like a bat or pterosaaur SOUNDS more plausible that 
>elaborating these funny, complex little scale derivitives 
>into aerodynamic structures.  However, in the case of birds, 
>thats not what happened.                      

Well, at least I've gotten you this far! Five years ago, BCF-like bird-origin
theories were "lunatic fringe." Let's see what happens in another five years.