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


>There is other evidence besides hard fossilized skeletons, you know. If you
>believe in the theory of evolution, and a little bit in parsimony, then you
>know that there WAS a lineage that joins the first archosaur to
>_Archaeopteryx_. Focus on that lineage for a bit. It started out as a small,
>quadrupedal, lizardlike animal with an antorbital fenestra and turned into
>_Archaeopteryx_. What anatomical changes did it undergo? Does it strike you
>as reasonable that the animals on that lineage first became (for some unknown
>reason) bipedal with small forelimbs and became large, ground-dwelling forms,
>then _later_ reversed themselves, re-enlarged the forelimbs, and became

But if this is true, then can we truly say that Archy is a dinosaur?  Further, 
if the BCF theory is right, then wouldn't all dromaeosaurs also have to be 
removed from the dinosaur category?  Perhaps, I'm missing the point???



Labrynthodonts: Amphibians that lived with the Minitaur!