Re: Parrots

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> I used the word herpetologists because not only dinosaurs, but also
turtles
> and possibly other, maybe even unknown groups of animals might fit the
> description, it looked to me a better word to use then
dinosaurologists...:-)

Hey! Turtles! I completely overlooked turtles! :-) Does someone know a
similar turtle?

> Further more I don't think it's a wise thing to do to refere a single
> element from the cretaceous to an extant order of birds.
> [...]
> So why asign an isolated cretaceous element to the loriids as it isn't
even
> certain it's avian?

Sure.

> There is also another consideration not to accept this record as loriid:
it
> extends the record for Psittaciformes with about 20 million years. A
thing,
> not wise to do on such poor evidence.

Well, the time span _alone_ need not be a reason. For example, the
dromaeosaurine and velociraptorine teeth from Guimarota extend the record of
Dromaeosauridae back by maybe 50 million years, same for *Koparion* and the
troodontid teeth from Guimarota. But this is expected because of
*Archaeopteryx*. I haven't seen protests against the Middle Jurassic
deinonychosaurian and troodontid teeth from England and Scotland either (not
to mention those from Russia), which add another 15 Ma or so. But the
"parrot" jaw would extend all known Psittaciformes through a mass
extinction, and this is unwise IMHO.