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

RE: Sinosauropteryx filament melanosomes challenged

Thank you for clearing that up. I had a feeling that some of the things that 
I've read from the "BAND camp" years ago were being spun in their favor. That 
being said, I never understood the indifference, since recent discoveries of 
feathered dinosaurs, air sacs etc. motivated me to buy books on birds and watch 
David Attenborough's 'The Life of Birds' back to back over an entire weekend... 

> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 13:01:03 -0500
> From: tholtz@geol.umd.edu
> To: simkoning@msn.com
> CC: augustoharo@gmail.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Sinosauropteryx filament melanosomes challenged
> >
> > Can someone explain this "bandit" thing to me? As a layperson that is now
> > hoping to be a scientist someday, I'm doing my best to understand the the
> > inner politics of different fields, but so far Googling "science bandit"
> > has not been much help. Also, is there still significant resistance among
> > ornithologists to the general consensus among paleontologists that birds
> > are a subset of dinosaurs?
> BAND = Birds Are Not Dinosaurs
> BANDit (preferred orthography is to capitalize the"BAND" part) = one who
> promotes the BAND hypothesis.
> And while there are some in the ornithology community to resist it, it was
> never a large organized resistance (part of the BANDit myth is to claim
> that it was). Instead, it was largely indifference on the part of research
> ornithologists: they cared about as much for bird origins as your average
> practicing neo-mammalogist cares about therapsid research.
> The main BANDits are all themselves paleontologists, not neontologists.
> Some specialize on paleornithology, others are paleontological
> physiologists, and Lingham-Soliar is most a marine reptile guy.