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

Re:FW: MSNBC article

Sunday, Feb 14 1999, Jeff Martz also wrote...

>>         Even if you except Olshevsky's idea that ALL theropods are =
descended from several radiations of arboreal forms, this still only =
covers the theropods; and the "dino-birds" would still technically be =
dinosaurs (unless dinosaurs are polyphyletic). "Birds Came First" is =
just a cute catch phrase for a theory that suggests that early theropods =
were arboreal, and that ground dwelling theropods are a polyphyletic =
group representing several radiations from arboreal forms; at least =
_ONE_ of which already achieved flight. I'm sure Olshevsky will chime =
in if I've misrepresented his ideas.
In any case, the paper is on BIRD origins, not necessarily =
"bird-like, possibly secondarily flightless theropod" origins. =20<<

Although I do ACCEPT George Olshevsky`s general outcome of his BCF, I`m not
sure at exactly what point he considers an actual "Bird" to have come into
existance. (I haven`t recieved any copy of Mezozoic Meanderings #3, that
might inform me of this...as yet.....hint , hint).

In any case, if you want to know what I think about the whole process of
Avian evolution, visit my website....


Attachment: http--www.capital.net-~larryf-.url
Description: Binary data