Re: Abstracts from Biennial Conference of the Palaeontological Society of Southern Africa & XIII Encuentro de J

[Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>]

Two decades ago, Welman (1995) used purported similarities in the
braincase to argue in favor of a  close link between _Archaeopteryx_
and _Euparkeria_ to the exclusion of theropods.  This link has been
comprehensively refuted ever since, beginning with Gower & Weber
(1998).  Nonetheless, Feduccia & co have occasionally raised this
(alleged) link between _Euparkeria_ and birds to propose an
alternative to a theropod origin of birds (e.g., Feduccia, 2002 in
_The Auk_, where he deliberately and speciously misquotes GSP).  To be
honest, I had thought the _Euparkeria_-based hypothesis of a basal
archosauriform origin of birds had largely evaporated.  The abstract
by Welman and James seems very retro...

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:35 AM, David Černý <david.cerny1@gmail.com> wrote:
> I really like Welman and Jones's abstract (p. 113 of the
> Palaeontologia Africana abstract book): it's a great example of the
> BANDit logic at its best. If this one particular character isn't
> homologous between birds and basal theropods, then there's obviously
> no way birds could possibly be dinosaurs, and we'd better start
> looking for another explanation for all that evidence from the last 40
> years showing that the evolution of pretty much every aspect of modern
> bird biology began in nonavian theropods or more basal pan-avians --
> parsimony be damned.
>
>
> --
> David Černý