[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Czerkas' book- Analysis and Criticisms
Dear Mickey Mortimer and List,
I would like a turn voicing my opinion. As most of you know, I make my
living as a paleo artist in one capacity or another. I have been blessed
enough to be somewhat successful at it.
The reason that I joined this list was to help me in my research and of
course, my love of animals, especially the prehistoric types . It has mostly
been a highly educational and enjoyable experience.
I do not know if Steven Czerkas et al are correct in thier thesis about
flying dromeosaurs and everything else they had to say. But then again,
unless someone is hording a time machine ) neither does anyone else on this
list. we all have our opinions, professional and otherwise.
To use blatant sarcasm and to insinuate that someone is soft in the head
because of thier theories, whether they are up to your superior standards of
excellance or not, is at best, unprofessional. Am I free to insult you
personally if I disagree with what you are saying? It is very difficult for
me to give credibility to someone who verbably assaults anyone who doesn't
see thier every utterence as holy writ.
When I begin research for my sculptures, I collect as much information
as possible, mostly from professionals. I then make my decisions based on
the accumulated material. I am good friends with several paleontologists
with whom I disagree with on many subjects. It doesn't mean I think that
they are "crazy", it just means we don't have the same view on everything.
Maybe I sound naive saying this, but the world would be better, if folks
were a little more respectful of others opinions, professionally...or
> Czerkas and Yuan, 2002. An arboreal maniraptoran from Northeast China.
> Here the real fun begins.
I don't see how Czerkas and Yuan can get away with this
> nonsense. So basically, if something is
> volant or neoflightless and has feathers, it MUST BE a bird to Czerkas.
> hence, maniraptorans MUST BE birds. Now, this wouldn't be too crazy if
> Czerkas just had this as an apomorphy-based definition of Aves. I'm
extremely disappointed such an
> unscientific theory got in print. > Mickey Mortimer