Re: The Sciences Magazine and Paedomorphosis

["Jonathan" <spockjr@email.msn.com>]

Dear fellow dino-freaks,

The March/April issue of the Academy of Sciences magazine
has an article on the origin of birds by Larry Martin who "finally
puts to rest this crazy myth that birds evolved from dinosaurs".
It's basically a rehash of Fedducia's work and some other paleontologists'
work taken out of context as usual.  My question is this: One of the
more common traits used against the dino/bird theory (and mentioned
by Martin in the article) is that of the teeth of early birds compared to
theropods.  Early bird teeth are generally sort of peg-shaped and not
serrated.  If I remember correctly however, Mike Novacek mentions in
"Dinosaurs of the Flaming Cliffs," a hatchling dromaeosaur with peg-like
teeth, very similar to
Archaeopteryx. If so, this indicates possible paedomorphy with
regard to bird teeth.  Makes perfect sense to me. Anyone out there
have any other references on hatchling theropods that might substantiate
this?
    Another thing (sorry have to get it of my chest) that I find very
disturbing is that 1 of these anti-dino-bird people's biggest arguments
is that "Well, paleontologists may know dinosaurs but they don't know
anything
about birds." What up with that?  As if the only thing vertebrate
paleontologists
study is dinosaurs.  I see it the other way around where, ornithologists may
know extant birds but they apparently know little or nothing about
dinosaurs,
evolution, fossils or paleontology (I can back this up as I know several
ornithologists, although I know this doesn't apply to all of them).

"All you have to do to fly is basically forget that you are falling."

Jonathan Weinbaum
(dino-freak, blues-guitarist)
CT Museum of Natural History
U of CT
Spockjr@msn.com