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


>Indeed, they almost certainly _do not_. Just like the secondarily
>"flightless" (for want of a better term) _Deinonychus_ probably didn't much
>resemble the ancestors of its common ancestor with _Archaeopteryx_.

Can we say "possibly" secondarily flightless?  "Allegedly" secondarily
flightless?  Secondarily flightless  according to George Olshevsky and Greg
Paul (and ANYONE else???)?  This is certainly not generally accepted as far
as I have ever heard.

i don't mean to nitpick this to death but obviously this list is read by
many non-scientists (including school children) who may be encountering
these messages for the first time and treat statements like the above as
though they were proven facts.  I think it behooves us to label hypotheses
or personal views, or we will be behaving no more responsibly than the
writers of Jurassic Park who have now convinced a generation of filmgoers
that T rex's vision was based on movement and Dilophosaurus spat poison.
Ronald I. Orenstein                           Phone: (905) 820-7886 (home)
International Wildlife Coalition              Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116 (home)
Home: 1825 Shady Creek Court                  Messages: (416) 368-4661
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2          Internet: ornstn@inforamp.net
Office: 130 Adelaide Street W., Suite 1940    
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3P5