Re: real long--TOO long: Fragment #1

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

These replies to replies to replies are getting too long to be answered in a
single posting. Plus I don't have the time to compose such long replies. So
I'm splitting the latest reply into several (don't know how many) Fragments,
each of which requires only a paragraph or two in response. I can send these
Fragments out as time permits.

[Technically this violates one of the moderation rules, but only in
 letter, not in spirit.  I think breaking these things up is a good
 idea, so I'm letting them through.  But I am first deleting some
 quoted material. -- MR ]

In a message dated 96-09-24 02:56:43 EDT, znc14@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Jonathan R.
Wagner) writes:

> At 12:01 AM 9/24/96 -0400, George Olshevsky wrote:
> [I respond to the Olshevsky posting with "{*" to further confuse the
> issue...]
>
> >        So certain are you that Protoavis is a chimera?
> >)) As I just said, you're there at Texas Tech. Why not drop in on Sankar
> >)) and ask to see the specimens? Then tell us all what >you< think you've
> >)) seen.
> {*        Once again, when I get up the courage to go walking on thin ice, I
> {* certainly will.  I am fully aware that Protoavis fits well into your
> {* theory, I'm just shocked to hear that sort of gaurded statement from you.

_Protoavis_ fits BCF only >too< well. So I'd hate to have it turn out
to be something disreputable, or to base anything on the specimen
until it is checked out by paleontologists specializing in
dinosaur-bird relationships.  Paleornithologists (e.g., Kurochkin,
Feduccia, Martin) seem to have embraced _Protoavis_ as casting grave
doubts on the BADD phylogeny (which they generally reject), but I
think this may be premature.