[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Tim Williams wrote-
> A bit of a tangent here... There was a similar case when a "Jurassic bird"
> called _Priscavolucris montsechi_ was described from Spain by Gomez Pallerola
> (1979). The name _Priscavolucris_ means "ancient bird". Anyway, it turned out
> that the specimen was actually a shark (_Lissodus_). Apparently the way the
> specimen was preserved, especially the way the fins were splayed, gave it a
> superficial resemblance to _Archaeopteryx_. (That's what I heard - I haven't
> seen the original paper.) Also, because '_Priscavolucris_' was found at the
> Montsec locality (where real birds have been found) it's of Early Cretaceous
> age, not Late Jurassic.
There was also the Kota bird (Jain, 1980) from Early Jurassic India which
turned out to be an Indocoelacanthus.
>> His Asiahesperornis is probably Hesperornis,
> The entire genus _Hesperornis_ needs a work-over, given how many species have
> been referred to the genus, including many quite recently (Martin and Lim,
> 2002):_bairdi_, _chowi_, _macdonaldi_, _mengeli_. Dyke et al. (2006) retain
> _Asiahesperornis_ as a separate genus, noting several differences between _A_
> and _H_.
Yet no one has proposed any synapomorphies any Hesperornis species share to the
exclusion of Asiahesperornis. Its validity is just something people have
accepted without question. My preliminary study suggests it nests within
Hesperornis, being close to H. rossicus and H. crassipes.
>> The popularity of Darren
>> Naish's blog, with its technical writing and references,
>> shows the public enjoys this level of detail as much as the
>> experts do.
> It has to be said though that Darren sets the bar very high. Some of his
> pterosaur blogs are much better than some papers I've read, and could readily
> be converted into publications.
I completely agree, and see that as something to strive towards.
The Theropod Database- http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Home.html