Re: Interesting information in article on Feathered Dinosaurs at the ROM

[Luis Rey <luisrey@ndirect.co.uk>]

On 14 Mar 2005, at 22:48, Allan Edels wrote:

> And, Stephen has had at least 2 controversies to bring them to the
> public's attention.  (Remember the _Stegosaurus_ plate organization he
> was promoting?)

I don't mind researchers of any kind, background or persuasion coming 
out with interesting ideas to provoke controversy to be tested by 
science. Debate should always be welcome.
I do mind however that suddenly someone can  come 'rediscovering 
America' basing the whole of their argument (and that implies a whole  
"new" view of birds origins, no less)  based on the length of a phalanx 
( page 114 of that priceless, but unfortunately  barely readable volume 
"Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight"). And on top of 
everything they add also a title which is also a misleading since they 
were argumenting that birds weren't actually directly related dinosaurs 
or just weren't dinosaurs at all! In fact... for them not only 
dromaeosaurs, but  even therizinosaurs are >not< dinosaurs anymore!  
Birds come from some Early Triassic magical reptile separated from the 
rest that could actually  fly...
A 'Feathered Dinosaurs' title obviously sells a mess a lot better. 
Maybe someone soon will be advocating Class Longisquamidae?

The "controversy" which really damaged the Czerkas team was not the 
"Archaeoraptor" blunder, but their stubbornness of trying to shove 
inside everyone's throat their own version of the Philosopher's 
Stone... and not even being able to know how to write and have 
evaluated a proper scientific paper.
Excellent artists though... if only they stuck to it instead of 
planning the Second Coming over and over again. But then, I suppose we 
all have big egos...only some bigger than others ...


Luis Rey

Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey