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

Re: You have got to be kidding

As wrong as you may perceive the results to be, I do find it intriguing that the bone section modulus data generates a similar result (tried to post that earlier but the server seems to be delaying my messages). I actually presented those data in parallel to the feather analysis at SVP. Doesn't mean that neither species could fly, but the congruence seems worth noting.


--Mike H.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 14, 2010, at 10:31 PM, GSP1954@aol.com wrote:

The Nudds & Dyke paper in Science on the supposedly weak feathers of
Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis is wrong, wrong, wrong. They failed to do a proper literature search on a key factor in their calculations, and the exact reason they are way into wrong is in Dinosaurs of the Air (which they did not cite) if you know where to look. Am not going to say where they made their critical mistake because am going to send in a technical comment to Science.

There is no evidence based on feather dimensions that basal birds could not
power fly.