[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
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 4:39 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: 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.
Other way round: _Rahonavis_ fits happily cladistically as a basal bird,
whereas Martin & the Feducciaries are calling it (the News item in the same
issue of Science where it was published, at the SICB conference and
elsewhere) a chimera: they claim the forelimb material does not belong to
the rest of the animal.
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: email@example.com
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796