[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
> 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
> 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
> Their phylogenetic hypothesis seems very confused, reminding one of
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.