[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>> The big picture conjured by BCF just doesn't make sense to me, even
>>without any speculative stories to explain the origin of flight, which
>>(sans fossil evidence) are just stories, and inconsequential to the
>>phylogeny (which must come first).
>> John R. Hutchinson
Ronald Orenstein replies:
> The arguments that I and others have raised here on flight vs.
>gliding, say, have nothing to do with the phylogeny because we all agree
>that the first bird ancestors must have looked and acted pretty much like,
>say, Compsognathus whether they were Jurassic dinosaurs, Triassic protobirds
>or what have you - in other words the arguments fit both theories. So
>despite the headings I do not think we have really been discussing BCF vs
Agreed; I just said the above to maek sure people weren't confusing flight
evolution discussions with phylogenetic flight origin discussions. The
whole discussion has become a complex web of tangents; I'm just keeping the
common ground visible, as you are.
John R. Hutchinson
Evolving Evolutionary Biologist
Department of Integrative Biology
3060 Valley Life Sciences Bldg
University of California - Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720