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

Re: New(ish) paper II

> > _Microraptor_ is called a troodontid.
> Must have listened to Jean-Pierre D'Amour. ;-)

Nononooo! Only the skull of the holotype belongs to a troodontid. =8-)

> Now I admit, it is odd for ABSRDists to understand phylogenetic bracketing
> and parsimony when ascribing birdlike characters to dinosaurs, so saying
> Sinovenator was feathered and had a furcula when neither are preserved
> come as quite a surprise.  Regardless, I believe that's what they're

It's quite explicit, IMHO.

> I've never seen so many false statements in one paragraph.

This ought to be a signature! :-)

> The only correct thing they say is that non-avian
> dinosaur feathers aren't derived from scales.

They do? Great!

> Do ABSRDists just like pretending the Yixian is Jurassic?

They don't read paleontological literature, such as Swisher et al. dating
the formation.

> Oh good!  Someone's finally studied the femoral head and acetabulum to
> determine their range of motion. ;-)

Does the paper mention any e-mail addresses? I wanna ask them! :->

> At last, the tripedal putative 'protobirds' can be discounted as avian
> ancestors.


> And look- more functional information for Microraptor gui.  Apparently it
> couldn't stand bipedally, who would have thought?

Perhaps it walked like a crocodile. :o) Would even be compatible with no
forearm pronation.

> Their phylogenetic hypothesis seems very confused, reminding one of
> (2002).

Oh, or of BCF, before it was managed to convince Olshevsky was not a

> I _think_ Long et al. are MANIACs.

I think they don't even know that themselves.