[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
MORE ON MARTIN
Dan/Uncle Grump wrote...
> For the life of me, I do not understand the fascination over
> what Larry Martin's opinion should be about this question. Why should I or,
> for that matter, anyone care?
Uncle Grump is of course right. HOWEVER, the facts are: (1) Martin
is one of the most vocal of those opposed to the bird-dinosaur link. (2)
The media and even other academics therefore believe some of the
things he has said and continues to say (e.g. no non-avian dinosaur
could climb a tree, _Rahonavis_ is not a bird, _Caudipteryx_ is a
confuciusornithid-like bird [with an inverted ischium] etc etc).
Regardless of whether or not birds really are dinosaurs, this is not on
(akin to, e.g., statements in the creationist literature that the human
pelvis could not have evolved from the chimpanzee pelvis). Thus.. if
Martin is turned around, we might stop hearing the same nonsense in
both the popular and academic literature.
As one of my biologist friends laments, it's a shame that the amount of
time and energy that has been expended in the bird-dinosaur debate
could not have been directed elsewhere: the conservation of extant
species for example (research relating to which does not just come
from neontologists). I would especially like to bring this idea to the
attention of those ornithologists who still contest the idea that birds
BTW: must mention the fact that I got to see my first live
_Cryptoprocta_ (fossa/fosa - pronounced 'foosh' according to some) at
Marwell Zoo last week. To my amazement, they had four of the things.
Like seeing a live thylacine.
PALAEOBIOLOGY RESEARCH GROUP
School of Earth & Environmental Sciences
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Burnaby Road email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Portsmouth UK tel (mobile): 0776 1372651
P01 3QL tel (office): 023 92842244