[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Perching, climbing, roosting was Re: 11th specimen of Archaeopteryx
> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:44:51 +1100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Perching, climbing, roosting was Re: 11th specimen of
> Anthony Docimo <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Really? What part of a goat is adapted for gripping branches?
> It's not "adapted for gripping branches". It's adapted for climbing
> challenging substrates, specifically rocks and narrow ledges. There's
> a reason why we say "as nimble as a goat".
I've seen some pretty...*...ninja images of the non-avian raptors. Some of
those images were by our own Greg Paul.
* = looking for a word..."acrobatic"? "yoga-ish"?...
> >> Mammals aren't reptiles. Never have been.
> > as long as the word exists, people will use it. best you get used to it.
> > (and I know you know what I meant by "reptiles" in the first
> > place)
> Nup, I'm not getting used to it. I've nothing against the word
> "reptile" - turtles, lizards, snakes, tuataras and crocodiles are all
I forget which publication or book I read it in, but I recall reading that the
Tuataras are as closely related to snakes+lizards (and-or) to turtles (and-or)
to crocodiles+birds...as they are to mammals.
> But the amniote line that lead to mammals split off from
> the line that led to reptiles, and the mammal ancestor was never a
> reptile itself. The ancestors of mammals never had scaly skin - they
> had glandular skin, like us humans. I'm not being pedantic here
Glad to hear it...so could you tell me which publication has the write-up of
the discovered skin of those mammal ancestors? I'd like to read it.
> the cause of "phylogenetic correctness". But the claim that mammals
> evolved from reptiles is incorrect,
> and needs to be jettisoned - along
> with the term "mammal-like reptile".
Good luck with that. seriously.
> > So in other words, "no theropod could ever be in a tree. ever. full stop."
> I never said that.
word for word, no you didn't, true. I was trying to summarize your position.
> > heck, I'm sure the mammals (Mammalia) have overcome constraints of their
> > own - constraints that surely separate them from their
> > ancestral clades.
> Mammals overcame these constraints by evolving new adaptations. These
> adaptations are usually clearly evident in their skeletons.
After the fact, yes. In the descendant clades, yes.
But in the radiations which include the ancestral line working to overcome the
limitation? That seems to be what we have with the protobirds.