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

Re: A question about Feduccia's claim of convergence

I have also sometimes chided cladists for allowing themselves to be fooled by convergences and other homoplasies. However in this case, it seems rather improbable that theropods and birds could have developed such a large number of convergences.
Some convergence between birds (Aves) and certain specific clades of theropods (like dromaeosaurs) is something I still consider a "reasonable" possibility, but Feduccia's view that birds are not a sister group to ANY clade of theropods is unreasonable in my opinion (given the present evidence). I certainly agree with him that purely cladistic "classifications" are not a good thing, but his criticisms of cladistic "analysis" seem to be unduly extreme.
-----Ken Kinman
From: Anakinsdream30@aol.com
Reply-To: Anakinsdream30@aol.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: A question about Feduccia's claim of convergence
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:27:03 EST

I am a molecular biologist so excuse me if my knowledge of anatomy is

Feduccia says
"Convergence is an insidious and treacherous trap, baited and waiting for the
unsuspecting worker and Nowhere has the trap been more successful than in
luring paleontologists to the theropod dinosaurian origin of birds".

His claim is that all the similarites are convergence...if it is such a trap,
why have we not see bipedal reptiles in the cambriaN, early triassic, or even
today? it seems to me that of all the species that have existed, that it has
occured only in birds and dinos......this to me is not convergence, but
homology that was shared by common ancestor.....convergence would be abundant
in a myriad of groups.....i cannot understand why no one has not questioned
him on this or have they..i look forward to ur comments or help in answering


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