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

Re: "Yale settles debate: Birds are dinosaurs"



----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald Orenstein <ornstn@rogers.com>
To: TIMOTHY BRIDGEMAN <timlee3005@earthlink.net>; <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: "Yale settles debate: Birds are dinosaurs"


> At 02:00 PM 1/23/2004, TIMOTHY BRIDGEMAN wrote:
> >It shouldn't matter if anyone calls the dromaeosaurids birds,since by
modern
> >classification,birds ARE dinosaurs.The common usage of the word
"bird"could
> >be applied to anything with such a covering of
> >feathers,(Microraptor,Sinornithosaurus,oviraptorsaurs like Caudipteryx).I
> >would never call someone's pet parakeet a dinosaur for the same reason I
> >wouldn't refer to any other animal by the name of it's ancestors,"My what
a
> >cute theropod dinosaur descendant you have in that cage,what's it's
name?"
>
> I think the point is that some people in the birds-aren't-dinos camp are
> suggesting that birds and dromaeosaurs are part of a clade that is
separate
> from the "true" dinosaurs and convergent with it - a quite different
notion
> to the one you suggest.  Feduccia has certainly tipped his hat in that
> direction.
>
>
I certainly see your point.Those people that suggest that birds and
dromaeosaurs are part of a clade that is separate from "true"dinosaurs and
covergent with it are of course,wrong.I see too many similarities between
birds and theropod dinosaurs,(even those not thought to be the direct
ancestors of modern birds,e.g.furcule present in Tyrannosaurus rex,downy
integument on Sinosauropteryx prima,and Beipiaosaurus inexpectus....)to
simply write them off as just a result of convergent evolution.

My 2 cents worth,
John Bridgman