[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Feathered dinos
In a message dated 10/27/99 1:11:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Dinogeorge
> Why is it that any fossil that doesn't fit the cladogram/theory of the day
> is called a chimera? Not to say Archaeoraptor is or isn't one, just that
> particular excuse is getting a little overworked (Protoavis, Avimimus,
> Rahonavis, etc.).
Well, _Rahonavis_ does make things *a little* uncomfortable for the cladists,
but I've never heard anyone but the Martin/Rubenites call it a chimaera.
_Protoavis_ and _Avimimus_ are called chimaeric on independent grounds
(principally lack of association of their elements). From what I understand,
there are indeed some very birdlike elements among the _Protoavis_ remains,
but it is quite unlikely that these and the rest of the material really come
from the single animal that Chatterjee has restored. As for _Avimimus_, I'm
waiting to see that new material the Japanese appear to have found.