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

Re: New feathered dino



Fabian Abu-Nasser (fabianabu_nasser@hotmail.com) wrote:
 
<Just saw the reuters news item on feathers in a non-avian dinosaur. Does 
this mean that the original archeopteryx specimen could be from a dinosaur
rather than a bird?  If so does it render the name archaeopteryx
obsolete?>

  The name *Archaeopteryx* applies not matter _what_ the animal is. If
it's a true bird or something that is not exactly bird, but close enough
(fully formed wings, mechanical features of the wrist and shoulder,
feathers, tail, and so forth) that the name Aves is defined to include
*Archaeopteryx*.

  The news article in questions staes that *Archaeopteryx* is a dinosaur,
not that it is not a bird. In this manner, the article says that birds
_are_ dinosaurs.

  (Yeah, I know, a subject hard to swallow for a few people who read this 
list...)

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/