Re: Defining the Beak

[MariusRomanus@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/18/2003 8:23:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
david.marjanovic@gmx.at writes:


>From Kris:

> > Would it be legitimate to call an upper and lower jaw that was covered with 
> > a complete and singular keratinous covering a beak if those jaws also 
> > possessed teeth which were used as the biting surface? < <
 
> I say yes. Others probably say no. Again others imply such a thing never 
> existed (explicit mentions are hard to find). The problem here is that there 
> is, so far, no fossil occurrence of
a preserved rhamphotheca on a tooth-bearing part of a bone. <

I completely agree.