[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, email@example.com 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.