Re: Archaeopterix? What Archaeopterix....?!

[Jarno Peschier <jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl>]

At 10:03 16-01-96 -0500, you wrote:

>>My obvious question: What do *you* think about this? Are H&W actually as
>>right as they seem? Is the book a "fake" (great piece of work then to find
>>all those clues for something that's not true...)? Is the truth somewhere in
>>the middle? I mean, the (partial) family trees that you guys post on this
>>list from time to time still include Archaeopteryx. That would mean the
>>general consensus would be Archaeopteryx did exist, as the two "fossil
>>finds" (?) indicate, right? Did I stumble upon a book that almost everyone
>>else missed? Is it humbug?
>
>The book is _complete_ humbug. Charig and several other paleontologists have
>totally discredited it. Besides, other specimens of _Archaeopteryx_ with
>unquestionable feather impressions have turned up since that book was
>written.

Mmm, I guess my Archaeopteryx info is outdated then...

>>Any reactions are much appreciated. I'm confused... All my information about
>>dino's and Archaeopteryx says Archaeoptery existed, yet the book says it
>>didn't, and I tend to believe it...
>
>Read the book with a jaundiced eye!

I will, thanks. It's a nice book nevertheless. And it looks nice to have a
full "personal library". I'm still working on that one... ;-)

          Jarno Peschier, jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl, 2:2802/245.1@Fido
      162:100/100.1@Agora, 74:3108/102.1@QuaZie, 27:2331/214.1@SigNet
___________________________________________________________________________
     What was was, before was was was? Before was was was, was was is.