[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP

To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:05:49 +0100
References: <NDBBIAJHGJBHMGNKDFAHKEJBIOAA.tholtz@geol.umd.edu> <005a01c50a55$2d1e8540$6900a8c0@austin.rr.com>
Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 2:02 AM

You've convinced me that caudipteryx was not ancestral to birds;
but I'm having trouble with the idea that this proves that archeopteryx
was ancestral to birds.


It doesn't -- and nobody said it did.

References:
- RE: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP
  - From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
- Re: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP
  - From: Dora Smith <villandra@austin.rr.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP
Next by Date: RE: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP
Previous by thread: Re: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP
Next by thread: RE: Caudipteryx not a bird and more from APP
Indexes: