[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Feduccia et al. (2005) Critique
2005/10/11, Michael Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Topic 4- The avian identity of Caudipteryx.
That's easy. Everything that has structures undoubtly similar to
feathers is a non-theropod bird (despite their other osteological
characteristic that unite them to theropods). If it's just fibers, so
they are non-avian theropods.
> "To illustrate the difficulty of defining the various dinosaur groups,
> Carroll (1988, p. 290) pointed out that "The 'carnosaur' families may each
> have evolved separately from different groups that have been classified as
> LOL Why? Why do you make it so easy to insult you, Feduccia? I know that
> _I_ go to Carroll (1988) whenever I need my dinosaur phylogeny questions
> answered. ;)
But it's a classical, we could not deny a classic. So we must go to
Owen's work to picture dinosaur evolution.
> Apparently, there's a tendancy for us dinosaur workers "to gloss over major
> problems of phylogenetics in the field. For example, in the new, 861-page
> 2nd edition of The Dinosauria (Weishampel et al., 2004), the chapter on
> dinosaur origins (Benton, 2004, p. 16) devotes only two paragraphs to the
> monophyly of Dinosauria! (Larsson, 2005)." Okay, Feduccia, you may not
> realize this, but dinosaurian monophyly hasn't been a problem since the
> early eighties. There's nothing to gloss over. Workers sorted it out over
> a decade ago (Gauthier, 1986; Brinkman and Sues, 1987; Novas, 1992; Sereno
> and Novas, 1993; Sereno, 1993; Novas, 1996)
I wonder how many paragraphs is devote in Pough et al's Vertebrate
Life to discuss the vertebrate monophyly or in a mammal text-book to
consider the mammal monophyly...
> "Like the term "thecodont," a collective term to describe Triassic basal
> archosaurs, coelurosaur and carnosaur describe, respectively, small and
> large theropod dinosaurs."
> No they don't, you ignorant man. Please stop brandishing about your
> pre-90's dinosaur phylogenetic knowledge as if it were relevent.
> And the reasons maniraptorans couldn't be theropods are never addressed.
Obvious, if they are bird would be a *gasp* dinosaur... And we know
that bird is not a dinosaur.