[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Feathered dinos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> << I don't know if I should be the first to mention it, but it
> was suggested
> numerous times at SVP that Archaeoraptor is itself a chimaera.
> the head looks (to me) dromaeosaurid or troodontid, the torso
> like that of a
> bird, and the feet like a tiny avimimid or mononykine. The tail
> looks like
> rather unnatural long, stiff rod. >>
> 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 this
> particular excuse is getting a little overworked (Protoavis, Avimimus,
> Rahonavis, etc.).
In the case of _Archaeoraptor_, there are some serious significant problems
of provenance. On the other hand, I do not think that the specimen is
chimerical to the degree mentioned above: I suspect that only two organisms
at most contributed. However, there are OTHER problems with the specimen...
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796