Re: Archaeopterix? What Archaeopterix....?!

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-01-16 03:57:09 EST, jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl (Jarno Peschier)
writes:

>My obvious question: What do *you* think about this? Are H&W actually as
>right as they seem? Is the book a "fake" (great piece of work then to find
>all those clues for something that's not true...)? Is the truth somewhere in
>the middle? I mean, the (partial) family trees that you guys post on this
>list from time to time still include Archaeopteryx. That would mean the
>general consensus would be Archaeopteryx did exist, as the two "fossil
>finds" (?) indicate, right? Did I stumble upon a book that almost everyone
>else missed? Is it humbug?

The book is _complete_ humbug. Charig and several other paleontologists have
totally discredited it. Besides, other specimens of _Archaeopteryx_ with
unquestionable feather impressions have turned up since that book was
written.

>Any reactions are much appreciated. I'm confused... All my information about
>dino's and Archaeopteryx says Archaeoptery existed, yet the book says it
>didn't, and I tend to believe it...

Read the book with a jaundiced eye!