[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Kurochkin 2006 critique
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
Kurochkin's latest (2006) paper is an interesting entry into the BAND camp.
Alas, "BAND camp" is not as much fun as Alyson Hannigan makes it sound. :-(
And another time at BAND camp...
Kurochkin claims "Late Triassic Protoavis is a headache for the proponents
of the dinosaurian hypothesis of the origin of birds. [snip] This is
probably the main reason why the majority of
supporters of sister relationships between birds and theropods omit
Protoavis from their considerations." No, the main reason is that the
remains are identical to coelophysoid and pterosauromorph (Atanassov, 2002)
elements, while the cervicals are similar to drepanosaurids'.
Kurochkin's comment that paleontologists omit _Protoavis_ from their
analyses because it is inconvenient to their hypothesis is disingenuous. It
is unfortunate that these kind of comments pop up in BAND publications. If
nothing else, it just sounds bad, and reflects poorly on the author.
As an addendum to Mickey's critique, Atanassov named two new taxa in his
dissertation as basal pterosauromorphs, one provisional. Both are mentioned
Neither species has yet to receive an official scientific description.
Material referrable to these 'species' has been found in the same strata
that yielded the _Protoavis_ hypodigm. Drepanosaurid material has been
found here too.
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces