[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
More on Feduccia.<Was: Screaming dromaeosaur biplane killers of the air>
> Steve Czerkas was correct that the Johel dromaeosaurs have fully developed
> arm wings.
Unfortunately that is about all Czerkas was right about.
> At the same time it turns out they had fully developed leg wings
Which was completely ignored by Czerkas in the paper on Cryptovolans.
I can say now that it's easy to have a simple look at the Cryptovolans fossil
pictures and understand that most probably we are looking at EXACTLY the same
animal. The long leg feathers are very clear to the simple eye in the
Cryptovolans fossil too, not so much as in the new Microraptor, but very clear
Mark Norell initially thought of what is called now Cryptovolans as a species of
Microraptor. What is it now... Cryptovolans=Microraptor gui or Microraptor
gui=Cryptovolans? I would love some clarification.
The terrifying thing about the analysis of Cryptovolans is that the whole
argument of it not being a theropod (and the main argument of the Czerkas
volume) rests on the length of a phalanx.(No III see page 114) that they claim
separates Cryptovolans even from theropods and Archaeopteryx itself! It's not
even the number of phalanges it's the slight length of it!
> To those few who still clinge to a nondinosaurian origin of birds, for your
> own sake and ours do not do as I predict in DA (p. 217-218) by separating
> dromaeosaurs from dinosaurs and joining them with birds in a separate clade
> just because well preserved feathers have finally been found on the
> dinosaurs. You folks have spent considerable effort until now trying to show
> why dromaeosaurs were not closely related in birds -
As seen in the new Feduccia's article published (or to be published) in Auk. I
have had the funny privilege of Feduccia himself sending me the article (I can
send a copy for anybody that needs it). Czerkas has been extensively quoted by
Feduccia as a main 'authoritative supporter' of dromaeosaurs not being theropods
and dromaeosaurs not being dinosaurs. He finishes the article saying that if
anybody says that dromaeosaurs are flightless birds then that is proof that they
come from an independent thecodont line originated in the Triassic and 'we all
have to go back to the drawing board'.
Some food for thought!
> It's a hopeless case. Birds are
> dinosaurs just as bats are mammals.
The voice of wisdom.
> As for many prodinosaur folk it is best to get out of the unsubstantiated rut
> of assuming that every bird-like dinosaur is basal to Archaeopteryx, and
> inherently an "intermediate" form that tells us how flight evolved. I'm not
> pleased that the discussion has focused on the obsolete intermediate
> postulate when these biwinged, pterosaur tailed dromaeosaurs are the best
> evidence yet against the obsolete contention that no avepod dinosaurs were
> also birds that achieved sophisticated flight, and in many cases lost it.
Again the voice of wisdom.
Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey