[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Martin and furcular homology
It's an ingenious backpedal. It's a tiny first step in the long process
of extricating himself from a losing hypothesis! ;-)
Seriously, I must give Dr. Martin a lot of credit. He was so entrenched
in his former views that by tweaking them, however trivial the change
appears to the rest of us, it took a lot of courage. Hopefully by the
time he retires, he will have managed to fully extricate himself. ;-)
In contrast, I think A.F. is preparing to go down with his ship. I'm not
making any value judgements. I'm only reading the writing on the wall.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:12:56 -0800 "Mickey Mortimer"
> John Pourtless wrote-
> > Not that I am aware of. Last I knew he is still advocating his
> > nexus as strongly as ever, with Lianhai Hou as his new star
> As of October 2002, he was a MANIAC (Maniraptorans Are Not In
> Seems he officially believes that maniraptorans are birds, but that
> coelurosaurs are unrelated. He terms this the "Paulian hypothesis",
> it's only similar in thinking of maniraptorans as 2F and preferring
> arboreal origin. In his mind, maniraptorans and other birds evolved
> from a
> Longisquama-like creature. And like Czerkas believes, some taxa
> Scansoriopteryx) are just too hard to place as birds or dinosaurs
> until a
> more in depth study is completed.
> Mickey Mortimer
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!