Re: Another useless question: evidence

[Stan Friesen <swf@ElSegundoCA.NCR.COM>]

From: Jeff Poling <jpoling@dinosauria.com>

 >    Specifically, its been said that _Protoceratops andrewsii_ cannot be the
 > *direct* ancestor of _Triceratops_ because of certain specializations not
 > present in Trikes. ...

Depending on what these specializatiosn were, this may or may not be
good reasoning.  Evolution does not go in a straight line, and trait
reversals are quite common.  So, the question is: how reversable were
the specializations in _Protoceratops_.

[Note, in this case there is additional evidence: I seem to remember
that some of the more recently discovered protoceratopsids are more
pleiomorphic than _Protoceratops_, which would support the conclusion
that it is NOT a direct ancestor of later ceratopsians].

swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com         sarima@ix.netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.