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

Feduccia's delusion

I wonder if any of you all took a look at Feduccia's
recent letter in the Nature tabloid. I am not a
paleontologist yet I was amazed by how he managed to
get something so subjective published as a piece of
science. The sum of his arguments is that Apsaravis
has nothing to tell us about early avian evolution. He
also insists that eventhough it is found in a desert
paleoenvironment it does not shake his shorebird
hypothesis. Here is is Feduccia's statement

 "Norell and Clarke describe the newly discovered and
well preserved Late Cretaceous Mongolian Apsaravis as
an ornithurine, cladistically slotting it between the
well known and abundant marine hesperornihiforms and

HE goes onto say that there is no evidence for
Apsaravis being related to modern birds so it is
irrelevant to the question of origin of 'modern
ornithurines'. What does this mean- he clearly does
not seem to understand phylogenetic arguments to even
be in a position to argue against them. 

In the original Apsaravis paper- did Clarke not show
that it was one of the few exquisitely preserved birds
from the late Cretaceous where otherwise very few well
preserved birds have been discovered. From where does
Feduccia get his special data for his hypothesis then?
His is more a conjucture than even an hypothesis  

Or Am I missing something? Please enlighten me what is
he trying to say here? It looks as though the
absudrities of this man do not stop with negating the
true phylogeny of birds.


||>>>>>               .....   =+--------> Amidst
||                   /     \  =+-------->
||>>>               | O   O | =+--------> the
||                   \  0  /  =+-------->
||>>>>>Katerina       |||||   =+--------> shamans

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.