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

Re: Origin of Birds




>In the Audubon article Feduccia does not claim that the cladistic
>methodology MUST be wrong. Neither does he claim that in  The Origin and
>Evolution of Birds.

Now, this is inaccurate. Feduccia has become famous for turning in the
Absolute Shoehorn. Everything he says is designed to make disappear the
idea of dinosaurs as birds or viceversa, even if he invents, ignores and
manipulates data. Please refer to the excellent Kevin Padian's article
about Feduccia's book in American Scientist, March-April 1997 (Page 178)


> Theropods were not adapted for climbing trees.

Excuse me if I find this Feduccia's assertion laughable.

 Flight began in the
>trees.

Indeed. So we better refer to Olshevsky's version of the facts that most or
probably all dinosaurs are descendant from arboreal or semi volant forms.


> Chatterjee?s seemed the most objective in tone of the three bird
>evolution books to come out during the past year. (The Origin and
>Evolution of Birds, The Mistaken Extinction, The Rise of Birds).

In this I agree strongly. Chattarjee's open, clear and unpretentious
approach makes for compulsive reading. I was very surprised by the amount
of date concerning Protoavis. Controversial and all, but rich, fresh and
challenging. I haven't read the whole book yet but I found he is getting
surprisingly close to George's theories... just a few steps and Chattarjee
might get into it.

I earnestly recommend The Rise of Birds, even if not everybody agrees with
Sankar.


Luis Rey

Visit my Website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey