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


--Original Message-- From: Matthew Troutman <m_troutman@hotmail.com>:
Sunday, March 28, 1999 07:14 PM

><<<Although some workers on the minority side of the origin of birds
>debate are very... uh... we won't go there.... ">>>
><<... presumably some episode or place where we had an alarming
>experience or two.  Well, Alan, Sankar and Larry Febo haven't shocked us
>too much have they?>>
>I don't want to attack somebody personally (also partly because I don't
>want a timeout) so I won't say the name, but I will tell you that much
>has been coming out of this dude recently. Some good, reasonable stuff
>in print has come from him, but some of the media quotes...

He's luckier than me, just getting into the media!  This all looks very
informative; I continue to read your postings with interest.

>[snip] Notice though, as Chiappe (1995) points
>out, too much emphasis seems to be coming from the braincase of birds
>and other fossil group.  This is OK, but obviously more evidence from
>the postcranial point of view needs to come through...

The Jackson School of Fossil Interpretation suggests that a reasnoble
understanding of the meaning of a feature (don't forget droogies, science
means knowledge, not necessarily a mechanistic process) is gained before
basing too many conclusions on it.  As certain head features tend to be
pretty inscrutable, I would tend to be wary of them.

>Regardless, the theropod
>hypothesis, whichever one you choose, comes out in the lead.

I suppose so, but I'd love it if it turned out to be wrong!

John V Jackson      jjackson@interalpha.co.uk

"So many professors . . . so little time . . ."

Dare you visit...
Dare you not?