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

Re: birds and/or/with dino's

--- On Tue, 9/15/09, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
> Ancestry cannot be cut off.

OF COURSE!  Before I had really ever begun to read much about dinosaurs and 
ancient life in earnest as a child, I recognized that bird feet and theropod 
feet were no coincidence. BUT to the common masses (of which ah'm) when one 
says "dinosaur" they are speaking about the classic perception of them - 
instead of the "non-avian dinosaur" terminology of today.  Sometimes, it makes 
it difficult to ask questions due to getting answers involving modern birds.  I 
believe we can all keep in our heads the ancestry of birds etc., etc., when 
speaking about the classic idea of dinosaurs.   After all, when we talk of 
mammals the issue of the mammal-like reptiles (archaic) rarely crops up into 
the conversation.
As for the length of the tail being used as the cut-off line, while noting the 
transitional forms, I'd say just use what is normal for today's birds - short 
'n' stubby.

Ok - I await the paleo-stoning/caning deserving of the amateur . . .