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

Re: MORE "Dinosaur Planet"dinosaurs!!!(This time with feathers)



> I'd like to contradict in that if Gregory Paul's secondarily flightless
'protoavians' hypothesis is correct, then maniraptorans (including NGMC 91)
and ornithomimosaurs would be a avians.

And still dinosaurs.

Birds are dinosaurs, just like bats are mammals. :-)

>  Probably the least birdlike feathered dinosaur is Sinosauropteryx, which
may be even more basal than the Coelurosauria (Longrich, 2002).

Some specimens of it, yes.

> The page most likely was referring to the interpretation of how the
integumentary structures should have look was based on the holotype and
referred specimen. Also, the holotype is the specimen on which a species is
founded, so therefore, the holotype of Microraptor gui, is in fact the
original fossil.

(The original fossil of *M. gui*. Not that of *M. zhaoianus*, which is the
type species of *Microraptor* as a whole.)

> reduced third manual digit;

Also in *Sapeornis*, which is less closely related to living birds than
*Confuciusornis*. This must have evolved independently, because the 3rd
finger of *C.* (and its closest relative *Changchengornis*) is in no way
reduced, it's even longer than normal.

> So Mickey's overall challenge remains. In order to support an Aves +
Caudipteryx relationship, you must produce valid characters that do not fit
into the four categories above.

That's not enough. You must find _more_ such ones than there are which
support the position of *C.* as an oviraptorosaur. And if you claim that
birds including *C.* are not dinosaurs, then you must bring forth another
100 or so features. (Which Feduccia has never done.)

> > I would'nt say that my viewpoint is highly
> > flawed,as it is all a matter of
> > interpretation of the evidence.

It's more a matter of knowledge of the evidence. :-)