[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Another useless question: evidence
From: Jeff Poling <email@example.com>
> Specifically, its been said that _Protoceratops andrewsii_ cannot be the
> *direct* ancestor of _Triceratops_ because of certain specializations not
> present in Trikes. ...
Depending on what these specializatiosn were, this may or may not be
good reasoning. Evolution does not go in a straight line, and trait
reversals are quite common. So, the question is: how reversable were
the specializations in _Protoceratops_.
[Note, in this case there is additional evidence: I seem to remember
that some of the more recently discovered protoceratopsids are more
pleiomorphic than _Protoceratops_, which would support the conclusion
that it is NOT a direct ancestor of later ceratopsians].
The peace of God be with you.