RE: small dinosaurs with feathers

> 
>"Jura" wrote:
>
>> With very few exceptions, most of the scenarios I have seen where birds
>> are referred to as theropods/dinosaurs, have always been for political
>> reasons only. 
>
>With all due respect, this assertion is plain nonsense.  Stephan Pickering
>is perfectly correct on one point: in a phylogenetic context, birds
>represent a monophyletic subset of theropod dinosaurs, and therefore birds
>*are* dinosaurs.  Just as mammals are a subset of cynodont therapsids, and
>insects are a subset of uniramian arthropods.  I could go on, but we all
>have better things to do than rake over these particular coals.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with most of what you said (especially the last bit), but I must disagree with the first point. The
statement that birds are called living dinosaurs simply for it's eye catching appeal, is far from
nonsense. When reading Heresies or any of GSP, or Norell's work, one routinely reads on how birds are
living dinosaurs and how "amazing" and "impressive" it is to think that the sparrow sitting outside one's
window is "the same kind of animal" as _T.rex_. 

Never does one read on how "amazing" or "incredible" it is to think that we, as mammals, are the "same kind of
animals" as dinocephalians, or _Dimetrodon_, even though the reasoning is exactly the same.

I'm sure if dinosaurs hadn't sparked the curiosity of humans as much as they did, the relationship (and
semantics) of birds and dinos would probably not even come up as an issue. Apparently knowing that birds
descended from some of the largest, and strangest creatures ever to have roamed the earth, is reason
enough to flaunt the "birds are living dinosaurs" statement around, and make birds "uber cool."

RE: small dinosaurs with feathers

"Jura" wrote:

> When reading Heresies or any of GSP, or Norell's work, one
> routinely reads on how birds are living dinosaurs and how "amazing" and
> "impressive" it is to think that the sparrow sitting outside one's
> window is "the same kind of animal" as _T.rex_. 
>
> Never does one read on how "amazing" or "incredible" it is to think that
> we, as mammals, are the "same kind of animals" as dinocephalians, or
> _Dimetrodon_, even though the reasoning is exactly the same.

Exactly right.  I agree 100%.  And maybe somebody *should* write a book that
includes that very sentiment.  Maybe somebody already has!  But if they
haven't, it isn't the fault of dinosaurs and their avian descendents.

> I'm sure if dinosaurs hadn't sparked the curiosity of humans as much as
> they did, the relationship (and semantics) of birds and dinos would
> probably not even come up as an issue. 

Who's fault is that?

Tim

Re: Just following the trend of questioning...

Nick Gardner wrote-

> 1)  Will there be more information published on the new Eichstatt
> coelurosaur?  I've heard that it might be troodontid.  Why?  Does anyone
> know anything more?

Looks very much like Scipionyx to me, especially in the lacrimal and
antorbital fossa shape.  It's only about a third larger though, so these
resemblences may be due to them both being juveniles.  It does not look
troodontid, judging by the elongate teeth, anteriorly placed antorbital
fossa without long maxillary fenestra, unreduced ventral nasal process and
large prefrontal.

> 2)  Did the truth ever come out about Avimimus and its supposed
premaxillary
> teeth?  Are they just serrated margins or are they really teeth?

Kurzanov (1985) described them as-
"One of their extremely distinctive features is the denticulation on their
anterior margin.  This consists not of small denticles, but of separate
large teeth 1.5-2.0 mm high, with slightly dissected margins.  Each bone
bears five such teeth.  It is not altogether clear whether these denticles
reflected the shape of the horny beak..."
Jaime noted (http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2001Sep/msg00699.html) that
Kurzanov used the word "zubov" for tooth, which can also refer to anything
toothlike.  The structures illustrated by Kurzanov don't look like teeth to
me.
Watabe et al. (2000) report, "there are small teeth in the premaxilla".
Can anyone who was at SVP 2000 clear this up?

Re: small dinosaurs with feathers

--- StephanPickering <at> cs.com wrote:
>      Dinosaurs are dinosaurs are dinosaurs. Is there confusion in this? Some 
> dinosaur clades survived the K/T boundary events, perhaps for several million
> years, while some dinosaur clades survived, adapted, and are everywhere on 
> this planet. I hardly think it "confusing" to refer to living theropods as 
> theropod dinosaurs, nor is it "annoying" to realize that the thousands of 
> species of dinosaurs alive in 2002 are dinosaurs. The vernacular word "bird" 
> cannot be suppressed, to be sure, as the intellectually challenged cling to 
> it like children cling frantically to their favourite blanket and binkie. I 
> choose to ignore the word "bird" because extant, avialian theropods cannot --
> repeat: cannot -- be diagnosed without, first, recognizing them as dinosaurs.

There are dozens ways you could refer to them: extant
avemetatarsalians/ornithotarsians, extant ornithodirans (unless this includes
crocodylians, per Peters), extant dinosauromorphs, dinosauriforms, dinosaurs,
saurischians, theropods, neotheropods, avepods, tetanurans,
neotetanurans/avetheropods, coelurosaurs, maniraptoriforms, maniraptors,
paravians, eumaniraptors, avialans, avians, metornitheans, pygostylians,
avebrevicaudans, ornithothoraceans, euornitheans/ornithuromorphs, ornithurans,
carinates, neornitheans. Extant feathered organisms/biotes. Extant volant
sauropsids/reptiles/diapsids. Extant endothermic archosaurs. Extant beaked
archosauromrophs. Extant birds. Modern birds. Modern avians. Different ones
will suit different contexts.

I think it's not that anyone (or most people on this list, anyway) disagrees
that modern birds are extant theropod dinosaurs, just that you don't always
have to call them that, just as you don't always have to refer to mammals as
extant cynodont therapsids. It does tie it back to the subject matter of the
list, though. I've got no beef with calling birds extant theropod dinosaurs,
but sometimes I'd just like to call them birds (or at least avians or avialans

Re: Just following the trend of questioning...

Nicholas Gardner wrote:

>
> 6)  Luis Rey's new painting of Deinonychus includes a quote from a paper by
> Alan Gishlick in which a special design is found in the hands of
> Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Deinonychus, and Velociraptor that allows the
> third finger to be used in the place of the second finger.  Regardless, the
> quote also mentions that it is possibly found in Protarchaeopteryx and
> Caudipteryx.  It is in Caudipteryx, but how about Protarchaeopteryx?  Is it
> found in any other taxa aside from the ones already mentioned?

Don't follow. Third finger in the place of second finger?  I'm pointing out
that Gishlick considers that the third finger could have been used as grasping
device almost (but not quite) opposable to the thumb while the second finger is
the one that bears the feathers.
And I don't think you are referring to the digit homology developmental theory.

Good that you bring attention to the text on that illustration anyway. It is
outdated: New, detailed paper on Caudipteryx points out that the third finger
retains only two phalanges and is virtually atrophied, clawless and maybe
almost fused to the second finger . I don't know any detailed analyses of
Protarchaopteryx hand, but as with everything that may be ourdated too.

--
Luis Rey

Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey

other dino-like prints from Italy

Surely not even nearly as astounding as the bird-like tracks published in 
Nature, but worth a look anyway:

Marco Avanzini (2002)
Dinosauromorph tracks from the Middle Triassic (Anisian) of the Southern 
Alps (Valle di Non - Italy)
Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 41 (1): 37-40

Abstract:  In Valle di Non (Northern Italy) siltstones of Middle Triassic 
age (Anisian) yield archosaurian and other reptilian tracks. The ichnofauna 
includes the ichnogenera Rhynchosauroides, Chirotherium, 
Brachychirotherium, Isochirotherium and Synaptichnium. Some isolated tracks 
show a trydactyl footprint that may be related to undetermined 
nondinosaurian archosaur with a very dinosaur-like pes.

In synthesis the paper reports the find of tracks possibly made by a small 
bipedal archosaur (Lagosuchus/Marasuchus-like) with a functionally 
tridactyl pes

For any further info on this paper please contact the author Marco Avanzini
avanzini <at> mtsn.tn.it

Not related to dinosaurs, but there is  another paper in the same issue 
which concerns a new ichnospecies of Isochirotherium, again from the 
Anisian of Northern Italy:
M. Avanzini and G.  Leonardi (2002)
Isochirotherium inferni ichnosp. n. in the Illyrian (Late Anisian, Middle 
Triassic) of Adige Valley.
   Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 41 (1): 41-50.
All the best,

Minor correction (was RE: Haha, even more questions)

Re: small dinosaurs with feathers

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 StephanPickering <at> cs.com wrote:

> For me, it is a never-ending source of 
> wonder that, even after the bollide impact, and unimaginable environmental 
> stresses, some theropods survived, and survive today.

And an even greater source of wonder if _most_ flying theropods
survived!  Then the surprise becomes: "If almost every other terrestrial
vertebrate survived, it's just incredible that every single non-avian dino
was cut down with surgical precision."

Re: Just following the trend of questioning...

Luis Rey wrote:
"Don't follow. Third finger in the place of second finger?  I'm pointing out 
that Gishlick considers that the third finger could have been used as 
grasping device almost (but not quite) opposable to the thumb while the 
second finger is the one that bears the feathers."

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say.

"And I don't think you are referring to the digit homology developmental 
theory."

No.

"New, detailed paper on Caudipteryx points out that the third finger retains 
only two phalanges and is virtually atrophied, clawless and maybe almost 
fused to the second finger . I don't know any detailed analyses of 
Protarchaopteryx hand, but as with everything that may be outdated too."

Yes, I'm aware of the situation with Caudipteryx.

Nick Gardner
AIM - CloudRaptor05
n_gardner637 <at> yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Re: Just following the trend of questioning...

>Protarchaeopteryx has digit III preserved crossing under
>digit II, so it would presumedly also have this morphology.
>Caudipteryx only has two short phalanges on digit III, but
>Gishlick (2001) notes its third digit also underlies its
>primary feathers.  I'm unaware of any other taxa preserved
>with digit III crossing digit II, but this is only seen some
>specimens of Confuciusornis, so this does not mean much.

Is it present in other deinonychosaurs aside from Deinonychus and 
Velociraptor?  Other birds?

Nick Gardner
AIM - CloudRaptor05
n_gardner637 <at> yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com