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

Re: Shaking up the bird family tree



No, I'm afraid the "flighted from flightless" line is in the original
paper. Sigh.

    Cheers,

        Christopher Taylor

http://catalogue-of-organisms.blogspot.com

>---- Original Message ----
>From: raptorialtalon@gmail.com
>To: birdbooker@zipcon.net
>Subject: Re: Shaking up the bird family tree
>Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:05:40 -0500
>
>>"And that flighted tinamous evolved from flightless ostriches, says
>>ornithologist Shannon J. Hackett of Chicago's Field Museum of
>Natural
>>History, one of the lead authors, "can change the way people look at
>>the evolution of flight.""
>>
>>Wow.
>>
>>Kind of like how flying bats evolved from flightless bears, right?
>>Right? Doesn't that just make so much sense?!
>>
>>I really hope I'm the one misinterpreting something here, because
>this
>>is just sad otherwise.
>>
>>Maybe we should focus on trying to "change the way people write
>>science articles for laypeople" first.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Ian Paulsen <birdbooker@zipcon.net>
>wrote:
>>> HI:
>>>  I saw this and thought it might be of interest:
>>>
>>>
>http://bwfov.typepad.com/birders_world_field_of_vi/2008/06/new-resear
>ch-shows-that-much-of-bird-classification-is-wrong.html
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ian Paulsen
>>> Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
>>> " Which just goes to show that a
>>>  passion for books is extremely unhealthy."
>>>  from Cornelia Funke's "Inkheart".
>>>
>>