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

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/30/01 3:55:38 PM EST, tmk@dinosauricon.com writes:

<< so if _Protoavis_ is to be used in support of BCF, you must disagree with 
Chatterjee's phylogeny >>

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. If Chatterjee's phylogeny is correct, 
then Protoavis doesn't affect BCF one way or another except to push back the 
origin of avialan birds, and consequently the origin of volant theropods. I'm 
pretty sure volant theropods (=dinobirds) existed in the Triassic, based on 
small tracks from Nova Scotia and South Africa, so a volant Protoavis would 
suit me just fine. (After all, it would have had to evolve from an earlier 
volant form.) But we need better Protoavis material to decide whether it was 
in fact volant (Chatterjee is convinced it was).

It's a lot easier to accommodate Protoavis in BCF than it is in the BADD 
(birds are dinosaur descendants) phylogeny. Maybe that explains why most of 
the people who propose that Protoavis is a chimera are BADD people :-).