|
<I know of nothing in Chiappe et al. which
conflicts with recent work, when that work is correct.>
Doesn't that mean when it agrees with Chiappe et
al.? Small point, but I wanted to point out that you did describe a
perfect circle.
Also,
Olson:
For example, Hou et al. (1999) are cited only to say that Chiappe et al.
were “unable to examine the recently described Confuciusornis dui. Yet,
nowhere is it mentioned that the main importance of this specimen is that it
preserves the horny rhamphotheca."
Your comment:
...Olson's example is not valid, as the main
importance of C. dui was to establish confuciusornithids had a complete diapsid
temporal arrangement.
Seems like a disagreement about 'the main
importance' of a find is pretty subjective?
Anyway, more significantly, I was intrigued by
the statement that:
<I would suggest that the reason Confuciusornis is the most
abundant bird in the deposit is because flocks of them were flying over the lake
when disaster struck. There can be little doubt that the principal means of
locomotion of Confuciusornis was flight. This is a most important fact
because it was flying with a primitive, fused scapulocoracoid without an
enlarged acrocoracoid process, it was flying without a keeled sternum, it was
flying without an alula, and it apparently was flying without a fully modern
avian wrist. Confuciusornis shows us, therefore, that we should not posit
the highly refined aspects of modern birds as being requisite for active
flapping flight. It also removes virtually all of the objections to
Archaeopteryx being capable of active flight.>
Would you agree with this statement? Including the observation about
Archie? Tenuous inferences...
|