RE: walking with beasts fact files

["Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@home.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
SCHMIDT
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 5:24 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: walking with beasts fact files

I'm most concerned with the accuracy of the animals appearance and behavior.
>From the pictures availible do they look like the species they are said to
portray?  For instance does the Smilodon seem to really be Smilodon
populator? the Phorusrhacos, Phorusrhacus longissimus etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: <NJPharris@aol.com>
To: <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>; <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: walking with beasts fact files


> While we're venting our peeves, I must say I am much bothered by the
implication in the phylogram that there was some sort of unified "ape"
lineage after the "hominids" branched off.  Maybe by "apes" they meant
"gibbons" (which do account for the majority of living ape species)?  In
that case, the "ape" and "hominid" lineages should have split way before the
Pliocene.
>
> --Nick P.
It's nice to know that they don't just screw up dinosaurs :)
Now all you mammalia paleontologist know what we dinosaurian people feel
like. Can they get it right sure can, will they?

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074