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

Re: Archie a bird[, ...]

To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Archie a bird[, ...]
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:37:09 +0200
Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58L0.1110252155150.26824@zipcon.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58L0.1110252155150.26824@zipcon.net>
Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

> Archie a bird

That's what the paper says, if we give "bird" the kind of branch-baseddefinition I <sigh> still haven't published for Aves.


> not a dino

That's _not_ what the paper says. At all.

References:
- Archie a bird not a dino
  - From: Ian Paulsen <birdbooker@zipcon.net>

Prev by Date: Re: Archaeopteryx London specimen made neotype by ICZN
Next by Date: Sauropod migration in Nature
Previous by thread: Re: Archie a bird not a dino
Next by thread: Re: Archie a bird not a dino
Indexes: