Re: Chimeras (was Re: Protoavis & Drepanosauridae (sensu Renesto, 1999)

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> In all the cases of chimeras you cited, the remains were truly scanty and/or
> were not found in association. With Protoavis there are lots of different
> bones, found in association--enough that one could expect, if there were more
> than one kind of animal mixed in, to find a few "extras." Of course, it is
> always >possible< that by some extraordinary chance none of the bones of any
> one individual survived that survived in any of the others.

Well, there is *one* other possibility -- that certain elements have been
misidentified.

BTW, since Chatterjee places _Protoavis_ in Clade(_Passer_ <--
_Archeopteryx_), it hardly seems like support for BCF, unless you place it
somewhere else.

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 Home Page               <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
  The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>