[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Birds? Serious question
Joshua Dyal wrote...
> There are still some glaring problems with the dinosaur
> bird link as presented, like the timing of Archaeopteryx relative to
> birdlike therapods such as Troodon (just pointing out one obvious
> example). I would think, if anything, that Lessem made the best point
> when he said that, if nothing else, the Protoavis find points out that
> any scenario is very poorly corroborated by fossil evidence.
If I remember right, Chatterjee actually suggested that _Protoavis_
was the first bird, and that _Archaeopteryx_ was an example of
convergence, not that there was a link between Protoavis, Arcahopteryx,
and birds, with dinosaurs showing traits convergent to all three.
Leaving this debate aside, I think that the link between
_Archaeopteryx_ and dinosaurs is extremely solid, and gets more solid all
the time. New dinosaurs are popping up all the time that have new and
diffeent bird-like, or more to the point _Archaeopteryx_ like traits,
the funny ischia and pubis of Unenlagia (sp?) being a notable example.
Poor Fedducia has been advocating a non-dinosaurian ancestor for
Archaeopteryx for years, but the best he has ever been able to come up
with is _Megalanacosaurus_, which looks more like a chameleon with a
superficially _Archaeoptewryx_ like head.