Re: Confuciusornis bird

[pharrinj@PLU.edu]

On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Clodis Hunt wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I seen your home page and think it has a lot of good information.  I would
> like for you to link 
> to my home page, and return, I will link to yours. This newspaper artical
> below will give you a  
> better insight as to the relationship with Archaeopteryx and the so called
> link to dinosaurs and 
> our modern day birds.    
> 

Sorry.  I just couldn't leave this one alone.

>                                 Scientists detect bird who ruled
>                                        prehistoric roost
> 
>                                      Confuciusornis sanctus
> 
>  The recent discovery of this ancient bird now called Confuciusornis sanctus
> found in a north 
> China farm field puts a lid on the trash for the scientist who, with
> Elementary understandings 
> has tried to lead us to believe that such a beast as the Dinosaurs and the
> modern day birds are 
> decedents of such a beast, as the Dinosaurs.
> 

Bull----.

>                                            Clodis Hunt
> 
> 
>                         The Kansas City Star, Thursday, October 19, 1995 
> 
> 
>     A University of Kansas scientist and three colleagues have identified
> the worlds oldest 
> beaked bird, whose fossilized remains were found in a north China field.
> Dubbed "Confuciusornis 
> sanctus," or the holy Confucius bird, it lived some 140 million years ago
> during the Jurassic 
> Period, according to their findings published today in the British science
> journal Nature.

..snip...

> 
> Finding the Confuciusornis--smaller than a crow, but more bird like with its
> beak and feathers 
> adds credibility to the bird scientists' side of the debate, he said.

Wrong.  Utterly and demonstrably wrong.  The feathers of _Confuciusornis_ 
are no more modern-looking than those of _Archaeopteryx_.  The ONLY 
feature supposedly linking this animal to modern birds is its toothless 
beak, also found in such indisputable theropods as _Avimimus_, 
oviraptorosaurs, and ornithomimosaurs.

Anyway, there are large numbers of Cretaceous birds known with large 
numbers of teeth.  What was that Dr. Martin was saying about a parent 
being older than its descendants?

> 
> "The evidence for birds being dinosaurs has become less and less clear. In
> my opinion, the coffin 
> on that case is nailed now, and hermetically sealed."

Funny how that's been Larry Martin's opinion all along.

> The debate had focused largely on the archaeopteryx, The oldest known bird,
> discovered in 
> Germany. It was a beakless bruiser with sharp, alligatorlike teeth.
> 
> Until now, archaeopteryx was thought to be the only bird to exist in the
> Jurassic Period, which 
> was about 140 million to 195 million years ago. It is slightly older than
> the Confucius bird, 
> Martin said.

No; Archaeopteryx was the only KNOWN bird from the Jurassic.  I know of 
no one who seriously predicted that it would be the only one ever found.

Besides, Jurapteryx recurva, usually referred to Archaeopteryx, looks to 
me like it may well be a different Jurassic bird.

> 
> The discovery establishes that birds were around before the dinosaurs from
> which Martin's 
> opponents contend birds descended. "One's parents should be older than their
> descendants," Martin 
> noted.

This discovery establishes nothing that was not already known, temporally 
speaking.  Confuciusornis is YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx.

There are also those among Martin's opponents who contend that the 
Cretaceous birdlike dinosaurs descended from Archaeopteryx and its ilk.

Confuciusornis, in particular, shows some features in its foot which may 
link it with tyrannosaurs, ornithomimosaurs, troodonts, and others.

..snip...


> area of Kansas, the Niobrara chalk is known to have remains of the second
> type of birds, the ones 
> that lived near water.
> 
> "If I could find a bird there as old as the archaeopteryx, that would be a
> big one," Martin said.
>                                                                             

I thought Niobrara was Cretaceous.  No Archie-age birds there.

>           
> 
> Congradulations to the staff and associates of KU for their work in proving
> there are no links
>                               from the Dinosaurs to our modern day birds.
> 
>                                            Clodis Hunt
> 

No one has proven anything, except possibly that Martin and his kind are 
getting desperate and grasping at straws.

There is simply no non-dinosaur out there that looks anything like a bird.

Besides, it's "congratulations."