Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC?

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Mickey Mortimer wrote (partially quoting Campbell):

<"To posit CaudipÂteryx as a basal oviraptorosaur requires the loss in the 
more âadvancedâ oviraptorosaurs of the avian manus (and a reÂversion to a 
normal theropod manus) and a loss of feathers. Neither of these possibilities 
is considered likely."  Ah yes, a loss of feathers in which oviraptorosaurs 
exactly?>

  We can ignore, for example, that in *Caudipteryx zhaoianus* the manus is even 
more avian-like than that of say, *Archaeopteryx* in that the third digit is so 
highly reduced it has lost the distal phalanx and ungual, resulting in a 
marvelous 2-3-2-0-0 (or 0-2-3-2-0) formula that exists  otherwise only in the 
ornithurine radiation. We can also ignore the non-manual condition, but this 
seems to be Campbell's framework for theory, since it is tied into the 
structure of the finger-identity argument. Note that Hinchliffe's abstract in 
the same volume (I've not read the paper) has a special reference to the fact 
that he dismisses, seemingly out of hand, the frame-shift hypothesis, or even 
where the frame-shift is supposed to have occured.

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
http://bitestuff.blogspot.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)