[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Fixing dinosaurian carnivour question
>On Tue, 25 May 1999, megaraptor wrote:
>> Ok, I think many people may have a misunderstanding about my question.
>> What I meant by "dinosaurian carnivore" was not an avian type of
>> dinosaurian carnivore, I meant DINOSAUR, as in Mesozoic era not any time
>> period after. I am sorry if anyone misunderstood my question and I am
>> sorry if Icame out rude just now.
>Dinosauria includes modern Aves by (cladisitic) definition, so it's a good
>idea to specify.
>So, do you want the smallest (known, adult) non-avian carnivorous dinosaur
>or the smallest (known, adult) Mesozoic carnivorous dinosaur? The former
>is _Compsognathus longipes_,
>--T. Mike Keesey
Well, comparing my cast of the Berlin Archaeopteryx with another of
Compsognathus, Compsognathus comes out as much more robust and fairly
bigger in every sense. So Archaeopteryx is definitively a smaller dinosaur.
Confuciusornis and Changchengornis are even smaller. Maybe as some
dinosaurs became more adept flyers they kept reducing size until refinement
allowed them to increase size again... as 'birds' and 'not-so-birds'; many
of them becoming flightless in a long, tortuous evolutionary process with
an incredible amount of branches and twigs of 'intermediate ' stages. The
basal stock of the dinosauria should have been very, very small... and yes:
Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx are bigger compared to all of them (I
remember the reactions of most people attending the National Geographic
exhibition, where everyone expressed their surprise at how
bigger-than-they-thought the fossils were).
Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey