Re: What is biomechanics? (or, The Truth About Flying Snakes - Was: Re: science and philosophy)

[John Conway <john_conway@mac.com>]

On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 12:52  AM, Colin McHenry wrote:

> To me, as a clado-skeptic, the confusion about the origin of birds 
> strongly
> supports the contention that cladistics on its own can tell you very 
> little
> of consequence.  If cladistics was the be-all-and-end-all of 
> phylogenetic
> analysis then why hasn't there been a definitive answer to the 
> question of
> what animals birds evolved from.  It's not as if you're short of 
> fossils, is
> it?

I'm sorry, I don't think there is "confusion" among cladists that you 
refer to. In fact there is remarkable consistency - Dromaeosaurs and 
Troodontids are the closest to birds.

The disagreement (confusion, if you prefer) is coming from those not 
using cladistic analysis. Besides, it is highly unlikely that we have - 
or ever will - find the actual ancestor of the Eumaniraptora. 
Eumaniraptoran fossils from the Late Jurassic are, sadly, very rare 
indeed.


John Conway, Palaeoartist

"All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

Systematic ramblings: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/
Palaeoart: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/_palaeoart.html