[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Differences between *Vancleavea* and thalattosaurs
> Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 07:27:21 -0600
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> CC: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Differences between *Vancleavea* and thalattosaurs
> We could wait for a year or more to see my work published, but why? The news
> is now. And thalattosaurs are just a small part of the story I want to tell.
There is always a "now". Shall we throw out the practice of publication
> Okay. Evolution marches on.
> In thalattosaurs the trend seems to be from short snout to long snout, long
> teeth to short teeth, armor to naked, feet to fins, etc. We'll have to see
> how it all falls out when all the details come out.
> In the meantime, if Vancleavea is indeed an archosauriform, don't you wonder
> where the antorbital fenestra and the temporal fenestrae disappeared to
> (without a trace)? Where's the mandibular fenestra? Why is the orbit in the
> front half of the skull?
what happened to your "evolution marches on"?
> Then remember, "the apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree" which is
> another way of saying evolution works in small incremental steps.
small steps have this tendancy to add up.
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive gift.