Re: The question of beaks in simplistic terms

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> 1) Havin' teeth has not been shown to negate a beak. 
 
Sure. 
 
> 2) Owing to the fact that so little preservation of such items are 
> known, correlations as in claw sheath preservation yet no beak 
> preservation means there was no beak, that have been stated in the 
> past, are at best wild guesses that ignore differential deacy. 
 
Okay. But does this even hold when the head feathers are preserved (which 
isn't the case in any *Archaeopteryx*)? 
 
> 3) If a beak or another form of covering is found on some animal, it  
> would only clear up the issue for that particular species. It would  
> not apply to all. 
 
Depends. I'm sure that all toothless ornithomimosaurs had a beak, for 
instance. *Pelecanimimus* is another problem. 

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!