Uncle Davey wrote:
> news:wg01c.130868$hR.2486485@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>
>>Uncle Davey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>news:bqN0c.126115$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.
>>>
>>
>>At this point I have to conclude you are being obstinate because you
>>find it amusing. I hope you and Lenny have fun flaming each other.
>
>
>
> I'm sure he thinks it's fun.
>
> Quite seriously, other than the tail, the other features could be a hoatzin,
> but all the artists impressions show the archaeopteryx with much shorter
> feathers than the hoatzin has.
Comparing the animals Archy has a long bony tail. three functional
fingers on each hand, jaws with teeth and significant skeletal features
different from modern birds. Hoatzin has none of these features. You
seem to be obsessed with the small claws of hoatzin chicks, if you
research this you will find that these are almost completely
nonfunctional while Archy has grasping fingers which are clearly fully
functional in the adults.
>
> What is the actual size of the archaeopteryx? (beak to tail tip and
> wingspan)?
>
About 45 cm long with about a 50cm wingspan.
Ken
|
| 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 |
|