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


On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Jonathan R. Wagner wrote:

> T. Mike Keesey wrote:
> >Perhaps my memory is faulty, but didn't Chatterjee also identify some
> >Triassic rauisuchian as an early tyrannosaurid? What's his deal??


> O.K. On a lighter and less obnoxious note: let's all remember that the
> Dinosaur Rennaissance [sic?, darnit!] has only been in full swing for a few
> decades. If you start looking back through papers from, oh, say, the
> mid-'80s when the paper Mike mentions was published, there were still people
> who followed the old-school "polyphyletic dinosaurs" approach. Cladistics
> was not too well ingrained at that point. Chatterjee's paper on the poposaur
> _Postosuchus_ may well be one of the last papers of that bygone era. I think
> you will find that his latest work shows he no longer subscribes to that
> particular theory.
>         No one ever said scientists have to be right all the time.

Okaaaay, so I saw a pattern, didn't know all the details, and wondered if
he had some theory about all theropod lineages evolving in the Triassic...
Glad to hear he doesn't. 

Or does he? Doesn't he still advocate _Protoavis_ as an advanced bird,
while at the same time agreeing with the maniraptoran origin of birds? 
Wouldn't that push the origin of all theropod lineages back to the

He may, as you say, have a Ph.D. and far, far more contributions to the
field of paleontology than I will ever make, but -- what's the deal with
that theory?!? (if he does still hold it)

--T. Mike Keesey
http://umbc.edu/~tkeese1 -- Dinosaur Web Pages