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

Re: Hone and Benton 2007 (their second paper)

To: dinoboygraphics@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hone and Benton 2007 (their second paper)
From: John Conway <john.a.conway@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:21:38 +0100
Cc: twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com, dinosaur@usc.edu
In-reply-to: <8C9729C2D23472A-BB4-49BF@webmail-md03.sysops.aol.com>
References: <8C9729C2D23472A-BB4-49BF@webmail-md03.sysops.aol.com>
Reply-to: john.a.conway@gmail.com
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

dinoboygraphics@aol.com wrote:

Or, since it shows no arborreal adaptations, would it be more parsimonious to assume it didn't take off, period?

Ignoring parsimony for the moment; swans and albatrosses show no arboreal adaptations, I don't think it would be rational to assume they don't take off.

ZING.

--
http://palaeo.jconway.co.uk

Follow-Ups:
- prehistoric electric animals?
  - From: Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com>

References:
- Re: Hone and Benton 2007 (their second paper)
  - From: dinoboygraphics@aol.com

Prev by Date: Re: Hone and Benton 2007 (their second paper)
Next by Date: Ant Hill Paleontology
Previous by thread: Re: Hone and Benton 2007 (their second paper)
Next by thread: prehistoric electric animals?
Indexes: