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


>         NO! Chatterjee simply interprets _Archaeopteryx_ as a late-surviving
> bird less derived than _Protoavis_. He does not say nor imply any 
> "convergence".
>         AS DOES CHATTERJEE! Chatterjee considers _Protoavis_ a:
> avian avialan maniraptorian coelurosaurian tetanuran theropod dinosaur

     Sorry, my original posting wasn't too clear.  I am aware Chatterjee
considers _Protoavis_ to be a maniraptorian, although I misunderstood his
interpretation of _Archaeopteryx_.  When I said "still consider the
coelurosaur-bird link to be more stable", I also meant that Currie, and
others, not Chatterjee, don't consider _Protoavis_ to be a coelurosaur
(which would mean its bird-like features are convergent). Or am I wrong
about that too?  I wasn't talking about CHATERJEE'S opinions, but those of
other pro-coelurosaur people who do NOT consider _Protoavis_ to be a
coelurosaur.  Well, it was a retarded paragraph anyway.    

LN Jeff