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

RE: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]

To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: RE: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
From: Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:16:30 -0800
Authentication-results: msg-ironport1.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <4B30D194.2060200@gmx.at>
References: <34183.22785.qm@web83713.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <COL107-W396656CA950F91F4CE336FAC810@phx.gbl>,<4B30D194.2060200@gmx.at>
Reply-to: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

Thanks for the comments, David.
 
> In
> fact, the only vertebrate "class" whose monophyly wasn't doubted were
> the birds, whose direct descent from *Archaeopteryx* was somehow taken
> for granted; bird polyphyly had to wait for Kurochkin 1996.

There were others long before Kurochkin.  Vogt (1879) believed dinosaurs were 
possible ratite ancestors, while Archaeopteryx was a carinate ancestor.  Mivart 
(1881) and Wiedersheim (1886) derived ratites from dinosaurs and carinates from 
pterosaurs.  

Mickey Mortimer
The Theropod Database- http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Home.html

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
  - From: "Dawid Mazurek" <dawidmazurek@wp.pl>

References:
- Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
  - From: David Peters <davidpeters@att.net>
- RE: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
  - From: Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
- Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
  - From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>

Prev by Date: Chinle *Paratypothorax andressorum* PDF Request
Next by Date: RE: Additional material on the Sinornthosaurus venom report
Previous by thread: Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
Next by thread: Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
Indexes: