[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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Dora Smith" <email@example.com>; <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>;
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> > Dora Smith
> > My understanding is that caudpteryx and some other close relatives of
> > 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.