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

Re: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP



You've convinced me that caudipteryx was not ancestral to birds; but I'm
having trouble with the idea that this proves that archeopteryx was
ancestral to birds.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra@austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
To: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>; <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>;
<dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP


> > From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
> > Dora Smith
> >
> > My understanding is that caudpteryx and some other close relatives of
birds
> > are controversial as to whether they are birds.
>
> Although the very first paper on Caudi suggested it was closer to birds
than it was to other dinosaurs, all subsequent phylogenetic
> analyses that include other non-avian dinosaurian taxa put at least some
of those closer to modern birds than is Caudipteryx. In
> fact, part of the fun experience's at the Ostrom Symposium about six years
ago (damn, was it really six years ago!) was to see
> analysis after independant analysis all converging on the "Caudipteryx is
an oviraptorosaur or oviraptorosaur-relative" answer.
>
> So in terms of the morphology of the animal, it isn't especially
"bird-like" any more so than  Microvenator (for instance), and less
> bird-like than Microraptor.
>
> > It is also sometimes
> > argued that they are evidence that archeopteryx are not birds' direct
> > ancestor but a dead end.
>
> Yes, some have argued that. But see above.
>