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

Re: Feduccia on MANIAC



John said something to the extent that Feduccia now believes basal 
dromaeosaurids are birds, but remain unrelated to more derived members. 
Although it 
looks like he was careful in how he phrased it, this doesn't seem to be the 
case. 
>From Feduccia (2002):

If, as proposed by Paul (2002) and Czerkas et 2002), dromaeosaurs are 
actually birds, either flightless or becoming flightless, then the question 
bird 
origins is again completely reopened. But aside from the obvious problems, that 
proposal has major
implications because both camps in the debatewould have portrayed 
dromaeosaurs incorrectly, and Czerkas et al. (2002:120) note, ââcladistics 
has presented 
a highly misleading interpretation of the evidence,ââ and (p. 122) 
ââThe 
origin of birds stems further back to a common ancestor of pre-theropod 
status.ââ If correct, whatever the case, the presence Cryptovolans as a 
dromaeosaur 
with fully developed flight feathers, an avian style hand and sternum, 
dromaeosaur teeth, sickle claw, and a stiffened dromaeosaur (rhamphorhyncoid) 
tail, 
should send those involved in the debate on bird origins back the drawing board.

PS: By the way, what was the earliest MANIAC paper? Maybe Olshevsky's strange 
version of it?