Re: Birds? Serious question

[Jeffrey Martz <martz@holly.ColoState.EDU>]

> Isn't that the whole point, though, that all these animals are much
> later than Archeopteryx?  If these new finds have more and more
> Archeopteryx like traits, that seems to suggest that they are
> secondarily flightless descendants of Archeopteryx, not ancestors.

     It is important to keep in mind that the Jurassic fossil record is
not nearly as prolific as that from the Cretaceous.  None of the theropods
known from the JURASSIC exhibit very _Archaeopteryx_ like features one
would expect from its immediate ancestor, but NEITHER DOES ANYTHING ELSE!
It is sufficient to say that the Jurassic close relatives of
_Archaeopteryx_ have not been found, period.  Theropods are the MOST
bird-like things known from the Jurassic, and still the best candidates,
regardless of whether or not a super-birdlike maniraptorian has been found
or not.  Show me a Jurassic crocodilian that looks even a little birdy, or
ANY Middle-Late Jurassic thecodont, and maybee we can start reconsidering
that position.  Disqualifying maniraptorians from the Jurassic because
none have been found and then hypothesizing about a completely unknown
branch of bird-like thecodonts or crocodilians is one of the sorrier
arguments of Feduccia and Martin.        

LN Jeff
O-