[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
In a message dated 10/24/99 11:06:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> So what about the therizinosaurs? For a while, the word was that they
> were highly derived oviraptors, but that family tree seems to have
> become passé. Now they are . . .what? What _are_ therizinosaurs?
Well, they were never considered to be highly *derived* oviraptors, merely
descended from a common *ancestor* with oviraptorosaurs. Many workers still
believe this to be the case, and if anything _Beipiaosaurus_ and Jim
Kirkland's new Utah form (not yet formally named...) have helped to tie down
this relationship even better.