Re: New Bird Fossils

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

I'd attribute the whole thing to a slow news day.

<pb>
--

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:41:28 +1000 dannj@alphalink.com.au writes:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:16:47 +0800, Christopher Taylor wrote
> > I'm rather doubtful about the validity of the whole story, to be 
> honest.
> > The general state of vertebrate fossils in New Zealand in general 
> is
> > particularly fragmentary, and the chance of anything being 
> preserved
> > well enough to retain integument would be somewhere between 
> Buckley's
> > and none.
> >     I'm quite prepared to eat my words once the paper is published 
> 
> > in a respectable journal, but until then....
> 
> The (very) amateur palaeontologist identified it as a 'pteredon' on 
> the basis 
> of the long bony tail alone. If you are willing to accept the 
> possibility 
> that some birds in the past actually HAD long bony tails, then you 
> remove the 
> necessity of classifying it as a 'pteredon' (whatever THAT is).
> 
> --
> ___________________________________________________________________
> 
> Dann Pigdon
> GIS / Archaeologist         http://heretichides.soffiles.com
> Melbourne, Australia        http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs
> ___________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
>