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

Re: Whatever prima



In a message dated 97-04-15 00:27:49 EDT, franczak@ntplx.net (Brian Franczak)
writes:

<< Jeff Poling wrote:
 
 > What I have yet to see is a really thorough explanation of what aspects
 >of    > dromaeosaurid/avian lifestyle would be alike enough to cause
 >convergence when > it seems like dromaeosaurids and birds were leading
 >extremely different        > lifestyles.
 
 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? >>

Feduccia's biggest error is discarding, as convergence, the mass of evidence
that theropod dinosaurs and birds are intimately related phyletically. There
is simply no other archosaur group to which birds could be as closely
related.

Meanwhile, you folks are now on the verge of making the big leap to BCF. As
I've maintained since 1991, it's when some of the [proto-]birds >left the
trees< to become cursorial that we got theropod dinosaurs, >not< when some of
the cursorial dinosaurs started climbing trees (or simply flapping their
forelimbs) that we got birds.