[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Whatever prima
> This exact thought has been running through my mind as well recently. Since
> Feduccia is in print (Audubon, April 1997) as saying "How do you get one of
> these dinosaurs into a tree? They're simply not built for tree climbing." I
> have to wonder how strictly-cursorial, non-arboreal animals (Feduccia's
> dinosaurs) are convergently similar to animals that, according to
> Feduccia's reasoning, must have spent considerable time in trees? Is it
> just me, or does this line of reasoning simply not make any sense?
Some people spend thier whole lives waiting for Mr. or Mrs. Right.
Fedducia seems prepared to be waiting his whole life for the Right
Bird. This will presumably be something that will look as birdy as
theropods, have as many or more bird-like traits then theropods, and yet
NOT BE A THEROPOD.
Also, exactly where among thecodonts (especially considering
how Sereno and others have shuffled things around recently) does Fedducia
and other non-dinosaur-origin people have birds branching off? Does he
even have a particular group in mind?
By the way, I think the name _Sinosauropteryx_ is just lovely. I
hope it sticks.
p.s. My Fedducia Gump remark the other day was probably out of line. I
was just a little irritated at his inference that the only reason
paleontologists would advocate the "fantasy" of dinosaurs as bird
ancestors is because they like the idea of being able to have dinosaurs
come to their feeders.