Jump to content

Early Bird?


Scylla

Recommended Posts

Archaeopteryx, while long an icon as the "first bird", only had a couple of the many features that define what is a bird. Not enough of them, in my opinion, to call it one, or to even call it a direct progenitor. The name means "ancient wing", and in this much it is accurate, but it was a side branch that did not lead to later "full" birds. I am glad that this is being more widely recognized. :)

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is this really all that surprising or even significant ?

what is the chance that the first fossil you find which appears to link dinosaurs with birds is really going to be on the direct lineage ?

also, take into account the range of dinosaur-like birds and bird-like dinosaurs that have been found in the last few decennia, and it becomes clear that there's a wide spectrum of inbetween creatures - one of which is archaeopteryx

so no, not surprising that we've finally found a fossil that fits the bill of "oldest bird ancestor" better than archaeopteryx - the only surprise is that it took so long

Edited by marnixR

I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things; by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose — which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me. ~ Richard Feynman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...