Re: parthenogenetically derived reptile offspring

["franklin e. bliss" <frank@blissnet.com>]

My bad Michael and you answered my dino related question in the  
followup research.  Thanks.    I missed your DML post of Oct 26th  
2002 which covers the subject appropriately. (yet another bad  
pun...ARRRRGH).  I stand corrected Ian as it appears that  
approximately 3 percent of bird species do have these structures.  
(Briskie and Montgomerie 1997) Seems that non-neoavian neornitheans  
(e.g. ratites, tinamiforms, anseriforms, galliforms) all have useful  
aparatus though not exactly the classical article.

I found the following papers that are somewhat to the point to clear  
up some of the confusion here.


Ultimate causation of aggressive and forced copulation in birds:  
Female resistance, the CODE hypothesis, and social monogamy
American Zoologist,  Feb 1998  by Gowaty, Patricia Adair,  Buschhaus,  
Nancy

available at:   http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3746/ 
is_199802/ai_n8791262/pg_9

and

Intromittent organ morphology and testis size in relation to mating  
system in waterfowl
Auk, The,  Apr 2002  by Coker, Christopher R,  McKinney, Frank,   
Hays, Helen,  Briggs, Susan V,  Cheng, Kimberly M

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3793/is_200204/ai_n9079763

And by the way Michael, to follow up on the question on that old  
post, http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Oct/msg00587.html   the birds I have  
known closely, (a few dozen different large parrots), were  
extraordinarily sensitive to touch and were quite aware of tactile  
stimulation of grooming by other birds/owner.  It is a social thing  
to them certainly and they were remarkably adept at even grooming my  
individual eyebrow hairs or even earlobes in their beaks which could  
easily crush a walnut.  Certainly feathered dinos had similar senses  
but the social significance is anyones guess.



Frank (Rooster with more options now) Bliss
MS Biostratigraphy
Weston, Wyoming
www.wyomingdinosaur.com


On Dec 23, 2006, at 10:08 PM, T. Michael Keesey wrote:

CMIIW, but isn't this only true for neoavians? I had thought that male
galliforms like turkeys (and paleognathes and anseriforms) were, um,
still all man. (Which of course suggests the same for other
non-neoavian dinosaurs.)