[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> * _Protoavis_ is always reconstructed as a biped. A bipedal animal
> older than six million years can be one of only three things: a
> dinosaur, a bird, or some member of a group as yet unknown to science.
> Why is that third possibility never mentioned?
Poposaur/rauisuchids include several memebrs that may have been
partially or habitually bipedal. I know of one being worked on right now
that shows a number of very theropod-like adaptations probably related to
> informed one that exists. So how did the lines get drawn as "it's 100%
> bird" versus "it's either a theropod or a chimaera"? Is there no chance
> that _Protoavis_ is, say, a very early scion of the line that led to
> maniraptoran dinosaurs and through them to birds?
Not likely considering it contains some features which actually
appear more bird-like then maniraptorian theropods.
> My personal feeling on _Protoavis_ is that it might be a bird, a
> theropod, a birdy theropod, or something else -- but if you want me to
> accept it as a bird, find me one with feather imprints. Nothing else is
> going to clinch it.
Feathers aren't the only diagnostic characteristics of birds. More
complete remains, with or without feather imprints, may settle the