I'm going to pull these threads together and answer a number of points/posts at once, but before I spend a couple of hours preparing that post, I want to test my "connectivity" now.
Two points I *will* make here are that I've had difficulty sending direct emails to Brain (Philidor11) as well as to the list in general, the last four not succeeding. Also, one of the many, many aspects that people have been missing is embodied in this quote from "EARLY EVOLUTION OF BIRDS" 7th Nov (directed to Philidor11 but copied successfully to the list):
"Anyone mentioning the idea that any Arctos/Mani's preceded Archae without also mentioning the possibility that Archae was the first is really being a long way short of 'scientifically' . . . 'fair'."
I have my ideas of dino. lineage but an equally important point (which I have made repeatedly) is why perversely ignore the alternative (Archae -> manis vs. mani's -> Archae) for which there is the most evidence (in terms of numbers of skeletons)? Your current ideas on this lineage simply don't work, and until you open your eyes, you'll never see an improvement, whatever it is!