news:bqN0c.126115$hR.2409669@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> >
> >>In article <c1shg3$cs1$0@pita.alt.net>, noway@jose.com [Uncle Davey]
> >
> > wrote...
> >
> >>>
> >>>>In article <c1q3ja$muf$0@pita.alt.net>, noway@jose.com [Uncle Davey]
> >>>
> >>>wrote...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>news:892cb437.0402271151.6f4f0c9d@posting.google.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote in message
> >>>>>
> >>>>>news:<b9b3de8.0402270454.ef64794@posting.google.com>...
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>It's jolly funny that we can find eight toothed hoatzins from 150
> >>>>>>>million years ago and not find eight Australopithecines from 1.5
> >>>>>>>million years ago.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Uncle Davey
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Come off it Davey! You know that this is a load of bollocks!
> >>>>>>Since when did hoatzins have long bony tails? Not to mention the
> >
> > whole
> >
> >>>>>>suite of other features Archaeopteryx shares with dinosaurs, as well
> >>>>>>as the suite of features it shares with modern birds.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You can't use as an argument "I don't know therefore it isn't true".
> >>>>>>Learn something.
> >>>>
> >>>>>So is this fossil a bird or is it a reptile?
> >>>>
> >>>>Both, of course.
> >>>>
> >>>>[Aves is now included within Reptilia, for that matter.]
> >>>
> >>>Since when, and on whose authority?
> >>
> >>I think the formal cladistic redefinition was made during the
> >>1980s, by Gauthier, et al.
> >>
> >>It might have been better to drop the name "Reptilia" and use a
> >>substitute like "Sauropsida"
> >>
> >>http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Amniota&contgroup=Terrestrial_vertebrates
> >>
> >>Say that their names follow
> >>
> >>Gauthier, J., A. G. Kluge, & T. Rowe. 1988b. Amniote phylogeny and
> >>the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4: 105-209.
> >>
> >>
> >>>That is just downgrading birds, that is.
> >>
> >>Not really, it's just placing birds in their correct context.
> >>The content of the group hasn't changed, it's now properly recognized
> >>as a sub-group of theropod Dinosauria. [Which is in turn within
> >>Dinosauria, within Archosauria, within Diapsida, within Reptilia,
> >>within Amniota, etc.]
> >>
> >>http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/avialae.html
> >>http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/coelurosauria.html
> >>http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/theropoda.html
> >>http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/ornithodira.html
> >>http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/archosauromorpha.html
> >>http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/sauropsida.html
> >>
> >>
> >>>As compensation, I want Amphibia to join Pisces.
> >>>Or at least, the caecilians should.
> >>
> >>Well, in a sense they already are. There is no longer a "Pisces" as
> >>a recognized taxon. The closest equivalent clades would be groups
> >>like "Vertebrata" or "Gnathostomata", both of which already do include
> >>amphibians.
> >>
> >>http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/vertebrata.html
> >>http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Sarcopterygii&contgroup=Gnathostomata
> >>http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Gnathostomata&contgroup=Vertebrata
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well I think it's a big nightmare.
> >
> > I liked the good old days, when you had
> >
> > Pisces,
> > Amphibia,
> > Reptilia,
> > Aves and
> > Mammalia.
> >
> > You knew were you stood then.
> >
> > Is there a picture of all these new fangled taxa anywhere?
> >
>
> Try www.tolweb.org
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>If hoatzins don't have bony tails now, then that's not a big issue.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, it is. The presence of a short, fused pygostyle is one of the
> >>>>identifying features of the modern bird clade. Hoatzins have
> >>>>pygostyles like all other modern birds. Archy had a long reptilian
> >>>>tail. It also had toothy jaws instead of a beak, long free clawed
> >>>>fingers instead of fused wing digits, and various other features
> >>>>more like other dinosaurs than like other birds.
> >>>>
> >>>>Within
> >>>>
> >>>>>cats and dogs, tail length differs greatly.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why should you or anyone mistake Archeopteryx for a hoatzin? It's
> >>>>no closer to hoatzins than to chickens or emus or Norwegian Blue
> >>>>parrots.
> >>>
> >>>The plumage don't enter into it.
> >>>This is a dead hoatzin.
> >>
> >>Well maybe only if all birds are "hoatzins".
> >>
> >>If you're serious about this hoatzin thing, which features of
> >>Archy are the ones that specifically link it with hoatzins. Are
> >>there any at all, other than the wing claws?
> >
> >
> > The general shape of the bird looks like a hoatzin.
> >
>
> Except for Archy having jaws with teeth, long fingers, a long bony tail
> and feet adapted for running not grasping tree limbs.
>
> Here's a picture of a Hoatzin
> http://www.mangoverde.com/birdsound/picpages/pic40-1-1.html
That is a truly beautiful photograph.
>
> and here is a page with several artist's renderings of Archy along with
> a couple of photo's of the skeletons.
> http://dinosauricon.com/genera/archaeopteryx.html
>
> Ken
I think they should add that lovely photo to the artists impressions.
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 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 |
|