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

RE: Mesozoic roots of parrots and passerine birds

  Dyke, Clarke and a few others have effectively argued that the material does 
not resemble any modern psittaciform mandible, and as Dyke and Mayr have 
argued, does not resemble that of Paleogene or Neogene psittaciform fossils. It 
is then considerably unlikely to be a parrot. I comment futher here: 
http://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/a-cretaceous-parrot/ . It may still be 
avian, however, and I specifically do not take this argument because of a 
limited level of comparison. It is, in any case, psittaco-morphic (having the 
shape of a parrot) but this is a generalization based on the rounded of the 
rostral margin, fusion, and the shape of neurovascular canals both within and 
upon the symphysis.


  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 

> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:05:17 -0300
> From: augustoharo@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Mesozoic roots of parrots and passerine birds
> Changing a little the axis of the discussion, was it proved that
> pretended Cretaceous parrot (Stydham, 1998, in Nature) was actually
> not a parrot? Dyke and Mayr's 1999 reponse stated it may be a
> non-avian theropod, but I was not able to find refutation (it may be
> said that because of being Cretaceous, the burden of proof is on
> proving it is a parrot, but the best test would consist in including
> the specimen in a data matrix of maniraptorans).
> Cheers,
> Augusto