From: "Jaime A. Headden" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Status of _Caudipteryx_
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:39:11 -0800 (PST)
Ken Kinman wrote:
<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.>
I'm sorry, but in an evolutionary scenario, you can know an end
product, only in the present sense. We could be primitively aquatic,
but you wouldn't say this unless you _knew_ of a product that became
aquatic that stemmed from _us_. You going to tell me that whales are
primitively flightless? At some point, any organism _can_ be
flightless, but I've already expounded on _a posteriori_ statements.
As a statement of evolution, one cannot say something is primtiive
without an evolutionary sequence that demonstrates transformation or
acquisition. Also, it would not be recommendable to assume a state that
an animal is not at, such as colugos (flying lemurs) being somehow
primitively flightless because for some reason a related group of
mammals became flighted. Huh? What does this say about the colugos? It
means nothing about flight except that it does not fly, like a relative
does. Supposedly bats and colugos are each others closest relatives, or
megachiropterans and colugosa (Volantia). It is not "primitively
flightless," it is flightless, full-stop.
> 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
> than his.
> ------Ken Kinman
> >From: "Jaime A. Headden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Reply-To: email@example.com
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >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
> >reach it, such as the ability to fly. Appling a possible conclusion
> >doesn't mean the a posteriori conclusion applies to an organism.
> >... dinosaurs are not primarily flightless, and no dinosaur will be,
> >even birds.
> > End rant,
> >Jaime A. Headden
> > Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na
> > 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
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!