"Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message
news:bsoum1$bp5$1@news.onet.pl...
>
> news:3feff342$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > Piorokrat wrote:
> > > news:bsn2kv$elk73$1@ID-35161.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > >>"Constance Vigilant" <anybodyleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:bsmtie$d0d$0@pita.alt.net...
> > >>
> > >>sniipping
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>However, I think your point stands. The simple fact that one delves
> > >>>>in aquaria does not make one an expert in anything unless that
> > >>>>expertise is actually shown.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Maybe someone can e-mail him and then he can see this and we'll see
if
> > >
> > > he
> > >
> > >>>knows about fish or not.
> > >>
> > >>I'm sure he's quite knowlegeable about aquarium catfish. However, I
> > >
> > > don't
> > >
> > >>think you should be looking to Davy for support on anything else.
After
> > >
> > > his
> > >
> > >>recent Archaeopteryx/Hoazin debacle, his credibility on anything other
> > >
> > > than
> > >
> > >>catfish is highly in doubt.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>DJT
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > How many Archaeopteryx fossils are there again?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eight.
> >
> > Plus Caudipteryx and about a dozen other species.
> >
>
> That's not good news, I have to say.
>
> I liked it better when there was only one.
There have been more than one since 1877. Were you alive over 125 years
ago? You can see images of the different specimens here.
http://www.stonecompany.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/data.html
DJT
>
> Uncle Davey
>
>
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 |
|