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

Re: Essentialism and such (was a bunch of previous subject lines)



At 08:07 AM 10/27/2006, you wrote:

[snip]

But from a pragmatic level, essentialism & typism results in misleading science. A case in point: many of the Feducciaries (for
those new to the list, check out the archives) seized on Welman's analysis of the brain of the coelophysoid formerlly called
_Syntarsus_ (I'm going to miss that name) as demonstration that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. Why? Because the brain of
_Syntarsus_ was too different from birds. And since _Syntarsus_ was a theropod dinosaur, its brain represented the "theropod type", and therefore theropod brains could not have been the origin of bird brains.

Was Welman's analysis of the brain, or the brain case? Because I'd be *very* interested in reading a paper about the brain of "Syntarsus" or Coelophysis, as opposed to the braincase. Were you possibly thinking of this?:


Welman, J. 1995. _Euparkeria_ and the origin of birds. South African Journal of Science. 91:533-537.

[snip]