[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
ge dated 96-02-08 16:39:17 EST, you write:
> This could again imply that Dinosauria is not valid and
>that they are, in truth, a "sub-something" of Aves...
> Not that I believe any of this mind you, I'm just thinking
Until something better comes along, I would consider "The Dinosauria" to be
the budding paleontologists if not the professional paleo-type's BIBLE. Just
keep in mind that any or all of it may change without notice!
Thomas R. Lipka