[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Question on Anchiornis huxleyi
NOTE: I had said, and Tim followed, by saying they had the MORPHOTYPE of
the ancestor. This is entirely different from saying "were the populations
from which X is directly derived", i.e., actual ancestors.
There are minor differences between them, yes, but all share a number of
generalized paravian traits in common at the same body size.
On Mon, June 24, 2013 10:54 pm, Mark Pauline wrote:
Of course no one is suggesting that Aurornis, Anchiornis, or Xiaotingia are
ancestral to Avialae or Dromaeosauridae, as all of the recent phylogenies
I am aware
of show these animals evolving after those nodes. You two must just mean
may retain different aspects of that hypothetical ancestor.
From: Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Question on Anchiornis huxleyi
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <email@example.com> wrote:
> Ultimately it is far less significant to resolve
> whether Archaeopteryx &/or Anchiornis &/or Aurornis &/or Xiaotingia &/or
> avialians or basal deinonychosaurs or so forth. Instead we should
> very likely homed in on the morphotype which gave rise to both the
> and the bird-line.
I couldn't agree more. Alas, while the morphotype of this
dromaeosaurid/bird ancestor is being nailed down, the ecotype is still
open to vigorous debate. Was this ancestral form terrestrial or
arboreal? Did fly, or not fly? Was it a predator, or a herbivore,
or both (omnivore)?
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 301-405-4084
Office: Centreville 1216
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Mailing Address: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology
Building 237, Room 1117
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742 USA