[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Bird Science (was RE: How are columbiformes (doves and pigeons) related to psittaciformes?)
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Dora Smith
> Well, I realize now that he was talking about the good old days when
> ornithology wasn't science; it was just about collecting and classifying
> bones and pretty feathers.. The fact that the knowledge that birds are
> dinosaurs split the community of bird scientists explains why all
> discussion about birds is on the DINOSAUR list! Poor people -
> they must be
> totally out of their element in the modern world.
Well said, although to be fair there is plenty of good science going on in
ornithology (anatomy, ecology, ecomorphology, physiology, etc., etc.). It
may simply be that few people are talking about it on ornitho-lists.
If you have access to The Auk (the ornithology journal), the following
exchange in said journal is very informative about rather different
approaches to bird origins...:
Prum, R.O. 2002. Why ornithologists should care about the theropod origin of
birds. The Auk 119: 1-17.
Feduccia, A. 2002. Birds are dinosaurs: simple answer to a complex problem.
The Auk 119: 1187-1201.
Prum, R.O. 2003. Are current critiques of the theropod origin of birds
science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002). The Auk 120: 550-561.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796