[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: WHAT I SAW TODAY AT NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
Speaking of _Protarchaeopteryx_ and _Caudipteryx_, Gregory S. Paul
> The describers place these theropods less close to modern birds than
> Archaeopteryx, and before the advent of flight. Of course this is
> However, I suspect these are secondarily flightless dinosaurs closer to
> than the urvogel. Consider some features one might expect in a
> flightless dinosaur, one closer to birds than Archaeopteryx. --SNIP--
(Sorry about the snip). Supposing that the scenario you propose is
correct, then, according to the present conventions, which define birds as
including _Archaeopteryx_, would not _Protarchaeopteryx_ and _Caudipteryx_
fall within the definition of "birds," making Martin and Feduccia
technically correct in that one respect? Or would it be technically proper
for these (hypothetical) flightless descendants of a flying,
direct-ancestor-of-birds-theropod to lack the essential avian characters
required to permit them to be identified as "birds"? Wouldn't they be
secondarily flightless birds? Are you suggesting that _Archaeopteryx_
should be thrown out of the definition of "bird"?
I rather like Mark Norell's concluding statements that one wouldn't be able
to sort out the birds from some of the non-avian dinosaurs if one were to
go back in time and see them, there being basically no difference between
them! (Treading on the feet of certain ornithologists, but I like it).
Heck, let's just drop the term "bird" altogether! (I am kidding). ;^)
Take your time answering, Gregory S. Paul; you deserve to savor the moment,
and John Ostrom does, too!
-- Ralph Miller III firstname.lastname@example.org
"The Pilt-down Dinosaur" indeed!