Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Any Puter Experts That Can Help
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:47:43 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 262
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <c271qt$7dn$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <21fj20p5p95pjh6uge6m8rir14osfd9gt7@4ax.com> <aU9Xb.7837$jf.7124@twister.socal.rr.com> <slrnc2qcie.1ho.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem> <c0jcqt$qff$0@pita.alt.net> <slrnc2qfnc.1k4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem> <c0ji3a$7q1$0@pita.alt.net> <GlkYb.5737$_g.4888@twister.socal.rr.com> <892cb437.0402180812.d59da4a@posting.google.com> <8k__b.2508$Bb5.116@twister.socal.rr.com> <892cb437.0402251141.16896912@posting.google.com> <b9b3de8.0402270454.ef64794@posting.google.com> <892cb437.0402271151.6f4f0c9d@posting.google.com> <c1q3ja$muf$0@pita.alt.net> <c1rd4i$qdg$5@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu> <c1shg3$cs1$0@pita.alt.net> <c1tkqi$o9v$4@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu> <c2058n$2d0$0@pita.alt.net> <bqN0c.126115$hR.2409669@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <c209bf$a8v$0@pita.alt.net> <wg01c.130868$hR.2486485@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <c246j6$br9$0@pita.alt.net> <s8o1c.68608$aH3.2098812@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1078397263 18495 128.100.83.246 (4 Mar 2004 10:47:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:47:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2903
news:s8o1c.68608$aH3.2098812@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > news:wg01c.130868$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.
If they are non-functional then why are they there?
What would they have evolved for?
Why do only hoatzins have them?
>
> >
> > What is the actual size of the archaeopteryx? (beak to tail tip and
> > wingspan)?
> >
>
> About 45 cm long with about a 50cm wingspan.
>
> Ken
That's about right, for a hoatzin, isn't it?
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 |
|