Re: "New" bird-dinosaur study

[augwhite@neosoft.com (Toby White)]

>The BBC is reporting a new bird-dinosaur study that reports developmental
>evidence suggesting that the birds decended from dinosaurs hypothesis is
>incorrect.  The researchers (N. Carolina, I believe) studied the development of
>the "hand" in "birds" and "dinosaurs" (no species given in the report).  The
>results indicate that fingers 2,3 & 4 comprise the bird "hand" (loss of 1 and
>5) whereas fingers 1, 2 & 3 comprise the "theropod" hand (loss of 4 & 5). 
>Again, no species were given.
>
>As no reference was given in this radio summary, i can supply no further
>details.  Has anyone seen this study?  Can you provide a reference or other
>details as to the species involved?  Comments?

The Houston Chronicle is carrying the same story from AP.  The research is
from Feduccia's lab at Chapel Hill (UNC), so I guess he didn't take long to
launch his counter-attack after SVP.  The study is coming out in Science
today, which means I'll get it next week and that its already on the net.
The story carried comments by John Ruben of Oregon State, who was impressed
by the results, and Mark Norell of AMNH who was defensive but didn't have a
snappy come-back.  He simply reiterated some of the morphological evidence
relating to fercula (?), three-toed feet and air sacks. (How good is the
evidence for the last?)

If true, this looks like a tough one to answer.  

  --Toby White