[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> > However, the reason that most paleontologists haven't accepted
> >_Protoavis_ as the ancestor of birds is two-fold; the speicmen is
> No more or less so than _Unenlagia_, IMHO...
But quite a bit more then _Archaeopteryx_, _Deinonychus_,
> O.K.: TIME OUT. I have not read the origional _Protoavis_ article
> completely (no time), but I know for a fact that Chatterjee currently
> believes that _Protoavis_ *is* a theropod. Period.
But does Currie? I can't remember from his paper, but I know that he
at least doesn't consider it as close to birds as troodontids,
dromeosaurs, and _Archaeopteryx_. I need to check the brain case paper
for a quote...