[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Feathered Dinosaur in Natural History

To: Dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Feathered Dinosaur in Natural History
From: Gautam Majumdar <gautam@majumdar.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 19:36:02 +0100
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10107012101420.8714-100000@asuwlink.uwyo.edu>
References: <p04320421b7657ca0ee19@[65.96.152.120]> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10107012101420.8714-100000@asuwlink.uwyo.edu>
Reply-to: gautam@majumdar.demon.co.uk
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

Richard W Travsky <rtravsky@uwyo.edu> wrote


http://www.amnh.org/naturalhistory/0701/0701_feature.html

A very nice article. In it Mark Norell has called both Archaeopteryx and
Confuciusornis - protobird. I thought they are both considered to be
birds. I know, bird and protobird are not quite scientific terms, but
common usage. But these two species were always mentioned as birds by
other experts. Has that been changed ?

Gautam Majumdar                 gautam@majumdar.demon.co.uk

References:
- Feathered Dinosaur in Natural History
  - From: Jeff Hecht <jeff.hecht@sff.net>
- Re: Feathered Dinosaur in Natural History
  - From: Richard W Travsky <rtravsky@uwyo.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: Rauhut's Thesis
Next by Date: Re: Morrison Sauropods\etc. *Eobrontosaurus*
Previous by thread: Re: Feathered Dinosaur in Natural History
Next by thread: Re: Compairing the tails of Archaeopteryx and Dromaeosaurids
Indexes: