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

Re: David's Statements [Extended Version]



As I wrote, under current definitions, *Archaeopteryx* is an anchor for Aves. So, under my phylogeny, either *Tyrannosaurus* is a bird, or we allow this definition to change<
<snip>
It does in my phylogeny where *Tyrannosaurus* is both a member of (Neornithes > Velociraptor) and one of (*Archaeopteryx* + Aves/Neornithes) -- assuming that I don't want it to be a bird.<
I thought that in an ideal (note that I say ideal, not most common) phylogeny, animals will appear to be related in a way that is independent of how people think they should be classified. This, I thought, was one example of a positive aspect of cladistics, that it removes the human bias (in theory). So, if T. rex comes out being a bird, well then, so be it!

Rumors have it that he hardly lets anyone see *Protoavis*... Let's hope he lets you, because both his 1997 book and his recent 100-page article in Palaeontographica (have yet to copy and read it) only contain drawings that may contain slight interpretations by him...<
Do you have the ref for the Palaeontographica paper? I'd love to get my hands on a copy of it! Thanks!
Peace,
Rob


Student of Geology
Northern Arizona University
P.O. Box 20840
Flagstaff, Az. 86011
AIM: TarryAGoat
"A _Coelophysis_ with feathers?"

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com