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

Re: Beaks and Teeth

> Peter Makovicky is quoted:
> The pattern of tooth loss that led to the eventual development of a full
> beak in later forms is different from patterns seen in birds, and suggests
> there are more complex evolutionary scenarios for beak development than
> previously thought, said Makovicky.

Well, there's no evidence that Confuciusornithidae or Ornithurae -- or
Ornithomimosauria -- got gnawing teeth before they exchanged them for a
toothless beak. Makes sense only when *Incisivosaurus* represents the basal
state for oviraptorosaurs.

> And then there are a couple of statements that don't make sense, perhaps
> because of typos:
> "The ideas that there were only 500 species of dinosaurs spanning 150
> million years. And most were small," said Currie.

Looks like severe cutting. The Vast Media Conspiration is to blame again.
Maybe that's short for

"The old idea's that there were only about 500 species of dinosaurs spanning
150 million years. Now we find that that's wrong, there must have been a lot
more. We find heaps of unknown and unexpected dino species in Liaoning. And
most of those were small, implying that other sites have preservational etc.
bias towards the big ones".

> A 4 inch skull is unlikely to be much longer than too many other dinos'.

Sure it is, in comparison to many other _oviraptorosaurs_. Plesiomorphy --
yahoo, we've found a _basal_ oviraptorosaur. That's the message. :-)

"What's your name?"
"That's short for... Bob."

Blackadder Goes Forth