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

RE: "Feathery fossil shows birds aren't dinosaurs"

Tom Holtz wrote:
> I wished that Jones & co. had actually listed why they think _Longisquama_
> was an archosaur, but they didn't.

> So, it's a great little beastie, but I'd like to see someone offer some
> reason to consider it an archosaur, or archosauriform, or archosauromorph.
> Crocs and champsosaurs are more bird-like than this baby.

You are being quite charitable to the authors by implying the possibility
that Jones et. al simply *forgot* to list the preserved unique
archosaurian traits.  ;-)

> I have an idea
> where it might fit, but must await the proper analysis to see if it is
> supported or not.

Without giving away any State secrets, is there any chance that dinosaur
specialists can get a crack at this animal next?  Is the specimen still in
the States?