[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Feduccia on MANIAC
PS: By the way, what was the earliest MANIAC paper? Maybe Olshevsky's
version of it?
Nah, BCF isn't MANIAC. Olshevsky includes some basal dinosauromorphs in
Dinosauria, and actually excludes sauropods and maybe some basal
sauropodomorphs, but Aves is inside Maniraptora, which is still inside
Dinosauria. Olshevsky just calls his hypothetical backbone of small
arboreal/scansorial quadrupedal archosauromorphs "birds".
The first MANIAC papers I know of are the ones in Czerkas' horrible book.
But even he had birds derived from "saurischian archosaurs", which ARE
dinosaurs of course. He just wanted to act like his theory was BAND. I
don't know where Feduccia (2002) thinks maniraptorans belong compared to
other dinosaurs. He seems to write off Dinosauria as being a poorly
supported/defined group, which is BS to put it mildly. I doubt he had any
clear idea of how the relevent clades were related at the time, as he
switched from ABSRD to MANIAC partway through his paper. He still may not,
we haven't heard from him for a while. Martin (pers. comm.) was definitely
ABSRD, as his Maniraptora derives from Longisquama relatives (which are
prolacertiformes or something), but that isn't published.
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up ? fast & reliable Internet access with prime