[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
John V Jackson wrote:
> Oh, and there's a chap talking tomorow who says the Cretaceous parrot is
> wrong; it's only the later tertiary parrots it resembles, the earlier
> parrots were rather different. It's internal canals resemble those of some
> parrots, but not others, and just because it doesn't exactly match the
> caenagnathids (oviraptor type stuff) we know of, that doesn't mean there
> weren't unknown ones it could have matched. He also suggested that, though
> we have no reason to doubt its provenance, it had been dug up years ago and
> had been stored in a box marked "Lance formation", and of course, mistakes
> can happen...
I find it rather disturbing that papers can get published in this
day and age in our "best" journals with that sort of sketchy provenance data.
I must admit, though, when I saw the damn thing, the firs thought
that went through my mind was "hmmm...oviraptorid?"
University of Pennsylvania
Department of Earth and Environmental Science
471 Hayden Hall
240 South 33rd Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6316
(215) 898-5630 (Office)
(215) 898-0964 (FAX)