Re: Martin and furcular homology

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

It's an ingenious backpedal.  It's a tiny first step in the long process
of extricating himself from a losing hypothesis! ;-)

Seriously, I must give Dr. Martin a lot of credit.  He was so entrenched
in his former views that by tweaking them, however trivial the change
appears to the rest of us, it took a lot of courage.  Hopefully by the
time he retires, he will have managed to fully extricate himself.  ;-)

In contrast, I think A.F. is preparing to go down with his ship.  I'm not
making any value judgements.  I'm only reading the writing on the wall.

<pb>
--

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:12:56 -0800 "Mickey Mortimer"
<Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com> writes:
> John Pourtless wrote-
> 
> > Not that I am aware of.  Last I knew he is still advocating his 
> croc/bird
> > nexus as strongly as ever, with Lianhai Hou as his new star 
> pupil.
> 
> As of October 2002, he was a MANIAC (Maniraptorans Are Not In 
> Actuality
> Coelurosaurs)-
> http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Oct/msg00295.html
> 
> Seems he officially believes that maniraptorans are birds, but that 
> other
> coelurosaurs are unrelated.  He terms this the "Paulian hypothesis", 
> though
> it's only similar in thinking of maniraptorans as 2F and preferring 
> the
> arboreal origin.  In his mind, maniraptorans and other birds evolved 
> from a
> Longisquama-like creature.  And like Czerkas believes, some taxa 
> (eg.
> Scansoriopteryx) are just too hard to place as birds or dinosaurs 
> until a
> more in depth study is completed.
> 
> Mickey Mortimer










________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!