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


        Ok, I am *%*^% sick of being Chatterjee's apologist, but...
Jeffrey Martz wrote:
>However, if I am not mistaken _Protoavis_
>seems to have a lot of bird-like features not seen in _Archeopteryx_, so
>if Chatterjee is right the bird-like features of _Archaeopteryx_, like its
>very bird-like flight feathers, are convergent with birds. 
        NO! Chatterjee simply interprets _Archaeopteryx_ as a late-surviving
bird less derived than _Protoavis_. He does not say nor imply any "convergence".

>Also, I am
>willing to lean a little more heavily on the opinions of paleontologists
>who have been studying the case for a coelurosaur-bird link in detail then
>those who have not, especially considering most (including Phil Currie)
>who have examined _Protoavis_ still consider a link will coelurosaurs to
>be more stable.
        AS DOES CHATTERJEE! Chatterjee considers _Protoavis_ a:

avian avialan maniraptorian coelurosaurian tetanuran theropod dinosaur
                 Period. End of story.

>Finally, if _Protoavis_ IS ancestral to birds, it still
>means the bird-like features of coelurosaurs and the bird line are
>convergent, not ancestral to both.  
        Not necessarily. It may mean (as Chatterjee hypothesizes) that thay
ARE ancestral to both (since this usage of "coelurosaurs" is paraphyletic),
in that they arose in the theropod line leading up to and culminating in birds.

    Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
"Cladism is to evolution what agnosticism is to the existance of god"-Horner