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

Re: Archie a bird not a dino

To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Archie a bird not a dino
From: Brian Hathaway <hammeris1@att.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 05:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <8EA458BD1E054AC8A91C4106CAF8386A@TYRANT>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58L0.1110252155150.26824@zipcon.net> <8EA458BD1E054AC8A91C4106CAF8386A@TYRANT>
Reply-to: hammeris1@att.net
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

So it is on fairly firm ground to continue with the idea that this creature is 
one of the earliest "birds" found?
(I need these directions in life!)
:-)

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Archie a bird not a dino
  - From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@umd.edu>

References:
- Archie a bird not a dino
  - From: Ian Paulsen <birdbooker@zipcon.net>
- RE: Archie a bird not a dino
  - From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@umd.edu>

Prev by Date: RE: Archie a bird not a dino
Next by Date: RE: Archie a bird not a dino
Previous by thread: RE: Archie a bird not a dino
Next by thread: RE: Archie a bird not a dino
Indexes: