Origin of Birds

Or that function = morphology

Andya,Sorry, I can't help you. I remember seeing a book on this very subject on Amazon, & I made a mental note of it due to it's recency. Even so, it wouldn't have made mention of Microraptor gui, but would of noted the other recent Chinese raptor fossils. I'll try to have a think as to where I saw the thing.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Prim,Chatterjee wrote two papers 91 & 95, & I've not managed to read either. (Chiappe 1995) suggests, that the fossils (which are incomplete) represent a possible conglomerate of different organisms, a crocodylomorph, an ornithodiran, & a prolacertiform.(Wellnhofer 1994) suggests that Protoavis is a therapod. Regardless, the dinosaur (therapod)-bird hypothesis is supported by many synapomorphies, whilst the basal archosaur hypothesis is (currently) supported by none.I think the best Chatterjee can hope for is that his archosaur-bird hypothesis takes on the status of "remains to be tested", time will tell.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-08-2003]

Andya,

quote:

---

Of course the dino-bird hypothesis will need to account for the absence of more ancestral forms in pre-Archaeopteryx times.

---

Not really, like you say, we need more fosils. In a cladogram, supported by a poor fossil preservation it is possible for stratigraphy & cladistics to mismatch 100%. Not an ideal situation, I agree, but it is reality. Ancestral morphologies may post-date the more derived ones as we see them now in the fossil record due to stasis. The fact remains (at the moment!) that the therapod (dinosaur) - bird hypothesis is supported by many synapomorphies, & basal archosaur - bird hypothesis, by none.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-09-2003]