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

RE: Caudipteryx suffered from osteoarthritis

> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Caudipteryx suffered from osteoarthritis
> How'd this get past review? The title is 'earliest recognition of
> arthritis in birds'. Practically no one consider's Caud. a bird, so
> that pretty well undercuts the 'significance' of the article.
Actually, wouldn't that* undercut the "Birds aren't dinosaurs" argument?
* = that Caud. isn't a bird.

> And if the reviewers/editors allowed that it was a debatable issue,
> then since Martin et al are in the EXTREME minority here, well
> shouldn't that have come up?
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Brad McFeeters
> <archosauromorph2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Has the sample size of *Caudipteryx* increased recently? Sure, I'm aware 
> > that there are multiple individuals, but "large population samples" is news 
> > to me.
> > Also, what is the scientific significance of claiming the oldest documented 
> > case of osteoarthritis in the fossil record? Is susceptibility to 
> > osteoarthritis a derived condition in amniotes? Is there an observed lack 
> > of osteoarthritis in Triassic and Jurassic dinosaurs that is anomalous 
> > enough to deserve explanation?
> > ----------------------------------------
> >> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:07:50 -0800