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

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

In a message dated 6/24/00 1:14:25 PM EST, jeffmartz@earthlink.net writes:

<<  If the arboreal lifestyle of birds goes all the way back to early 
archosaurs, then you have to have something built like Euparkeria as your 
arboreal ancestor, climbing around in trees and itermittantly tossing off the 
larger bodied cursorial forms (like your dinobirds tossing off big 
theropods), and waiting until the split with Pseudosuchia before developing 
the bipedal and long-fingered design you claim was more better specialized 
for an arboreal lifestyle.>>

Yes, well, I don't see much wrong with this picture. Except that Euparkeria 
was most likely another one of those offshoots no longer on the direct 
lineage from first archosaur to birds. Once a lineage branches off, anything 
goes. The animals can become huge, they can become aquatic, they can become 
pretty much anything. They can even (though I don't think this happened) 
become small and arboreal again.

<<  Where do Longisquama and Cosesaurus fit into that? >>

Apparently they don't. Evidence is accumulating that Cosesaurus and 
Longisquama are, after all, not archosaurs. But the smoke hasn't cleared from 
that debate yet.