[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Status of _Caudipteryx_

Just how closely flying lemurs are related to any particular groups of bats is controversial (although both groups are regarded as belonging to a single clade Archonta (along with primates and tree shrews, as well as plesiadapiforms if one wishes to separate them from primates).
However, I would say that the vast majority of groups of organisms are primitively or primarily flightless, and I'm sure even Dinogeorge would agree that this applies to ornithischian and sauropodomorph dinosaurs. I don't understand how you can say that there is no such thing as a primitively flightless organism or primitively flightless dinosaurs. Eric's statements perhaps deserve to be challenged, but this seems to be a very odd way of doing it. Therefore, I am more inclined to challenge your statements than his.
------Ken Kinman
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: qilongia@yahoo.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Status of _Caudipteryx_
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:28:55 -0800 (PST)

Eric Lurio (at ELurio@aol.com) wrote:

<Not neccessarily. The so-called "flying lemurs" are primitively
flightless, and I've read that they may be closely related to fruit

  There is no such thing as a primitively or "primarily" flightless
organism, because no animal trends towards a state with the intent to
reach it, such as the ability to fly. Appling a possible conclusion
doesn't mean the a posteriori conclusion applies to an organism. Okay
... dinosaurs are not primarily flightless, and no dinosaur will be,
even birds.

  End rant,

Jaime A. Headden

  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com