[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Origins (was: Re: Sharovipteryx)
At 05:04 PM 5/25/00 -0400, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
What they UTTERLY failed to point out was that:
a) Chatterjee's "protoavian" is explicitly labelled as a dromaeosaur in the
b) Chatterjee is a very strong advocate of the dinosaurian origin of birds;
c) Chatterjee's position is supported by his own numerical phylogenetic
Since the majority of the people at the symposium were not paleontologists,
they had no way of knowing that they were being misled. The figure used to
illustrate the "dichotomy" of the position was itself one that blasts that
dichotomy: a trees down, cladisitic, dinosaurian origin.
I, too, am amazed by how easily these two logically distinct ideas get
I have yet to see what I consider an acceptable model for ground-up origin
And I have yet to see any sound refutation of the cladistic nesting of Aves
So, I am with Chaterjee in most respects on this.
Unfortunately, this sort of conflation happens more often than one might
wish in scientific work. I know of one old debate about the relationships
of a group of marine fossils which involved no less than *three* conflated
hypotheses, and yet I never found even ONE article in the series that
properly separated them. [Someday I would like to "reopen" part of that
debate on that very grounds].
May the peace of God be with you. firstname.lastname@example.org