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

Re: Feduccia's allegations



Of course, because he _knows_ Archie had feathers.
But let's suppose all _Archaeopteryx_ specimens had be found without
feathers imprints, I guess Feduccia wouldn't have noticed anything, and he'd
have let it be a dinosaur.

Of course, it's a null hypothesis... Just my 2 cents...

Cheers - Aspidel.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Orenstein" <ornstn@rogers.com>
To: <aspidel@wanadoo.be>; "The Dinosaur Mailing List" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Feduccia's allegations + Scansoriopteryx.


> At 07:20 PM 23/01/03 +0100, Aspidel wrote:
> >Probably it would have took many more years for scientists to find birds
are
> >dinosaurs... because Archie _is_ a dinosaur first.
>
> Except, of course, that Feduccia does not seem to believe that
> Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur.  He said as much in the interview:
> "Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and
> so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs
> or not."