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

Re: Say this slowly: theropoda is paraphylitic, theropoda is paraphlyitic.....



In a message dated 6/24/00 2:42:33 PM, jeffmartz@earthlink.net writes:

<< >It's interesting to note that none of the proponents of the dino/bird 
nexus

>have even *thought* of the idea that theropoda might be paraphyletic.

>Okay, lets assume for the moment that Logismama(sic) is a protobird

unrelated

>to dinosaurs beyond the early archisauromorphs. Then it or it's very close

>reletive evolved into birds and those parabirds with the feathers that were

>found in China. You then have the Jurrassic/Cretaceous exinction event,

whatever it was. As

>most of the birds living at the time had clawed wings and lots of teeth,

>there would be several ecological nitches to fill. Secondary flightlessness

>similier to modern ratites, but with teeth and claws. What do you have? A

>critter that looks superficially like a theropod. It has been shown

>conclusivley that many so-called theropods like maniraptors and orthomimids

>are extremely birdlike.



    They also look extremely like other theropods.  Your idea has to explain

why coelurosaurs and birds have so many detailed similarities with

theropods, especially since they have zero similarity to Longisquama.  What

reason is there NOT to think that coelurosaurs and other thropods aren't

related?  Why do we need this particular elaborate story? >>

Because it fits the fossil record? The ground up hypothisis is even more 
ridiculous sounding, and is only popular because the aboreal protobird had 
never been found.

eric l.