[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Avian Monophyly (Was Re: Sheesh)... :-)
Evelyn Sobielski wrote:
The "Birds Came First" model in a nutshell.
No!!! Yikes!!! What I mentioned was a phylogenetic hypothesis under which
powered flight is primitive for Paraves, or for some other subset of
Maniraptora more inclusive than Aves. This is not "BCF" (sensu Olshevsky),
which is far more radical.
BCF ("Birds Came First") proposes that ALL dinosaurs evolved directly from
arboreal ancestors - not just maniraptorans, but all theropods, and
sauropodomorphs and ornithschians too. Crazy talk. BCF is Greg Paul's
"Dinosaurs of the Air" on crack.
after which time there seems to have been some secondary flightlessness but
very few new takes on powered flight (of which Rahonavis IMHO was one,
hence its primitive features.
Rather than this convoluted scenario, I still don't see why _Rahonavis_
couldn't just be considered a relict taxon. After all, there were
long-bony-tailed birds around in the Early Cretaceous.
BCF is a feasible argument on basis of the available data,
No, BCF is nonsense. It is a "just-so" story that has absolutely no
supporting evidence. Worse, because it's so vague and poorly constructed,
BCF does not qualify as a hypothesis. Thus, BCF cannot be tested, and so it
cannot be refuted. To borrow a quote from Wolfgang Pauli, "It is not even
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with