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

Re: your mail



On Fri, 9 Feb 1996 Tompaleo@aol.com wrote:

> 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!

Now I can't be completely sure, but I *believe* he meant that the *clade 
Dinosauria* is not valid, not the book, _The Dinosauria_.

> Regards,
> Thomas R. Lipka
> Paleontological/Geological Studies
> 

Nick Pharris
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
(206)535-8204
PharriNJ@PLU.edu

"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -- Harry S. Truman