On 10/11/23 1:27 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:25:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 10/10/23 1:13 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:54:40 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>> For those interested, there is a book-length survey of avian
paleontology, written by a prominent avian paleontologist:
Mayr, Gerald. 2017. Avian evolution: The fossil record of birds and its >>>> paleobiological significance. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford.
Though it covers the Mesozoic origins of the group, it's mostly focused >>>> on the Cenozoic.
What does it provide in the way of phylogeny, and what analyses of Archosauria
in general does it cite as evidence that birds are theropods?
Let me reiterate that the origin of birds is a very small part of the book.
It provides a fair number of trees at various levels, but the non-avian dinosaurs are not at all the focus. He cites Makovicky and Zanno 2011,
Turner et al. 2012 for a tree showing Maniraptora. There are other
citations for the position of scansoriopterygids.
And how does he handle the subject of proto-feathers vs pennaceous feathers?
Does he use both kinds to buttress Henry Gee's proclamation "The Debate Is Over -- Birds Are Dinosaurs"
on the one hand, while keeping them out of phylogenetic analyses on the other?
If he (also?) does the latter, does he give the same grounds you once gave -- too few kinds of dinos have them?
He doesn't do anything of the sort. Birds being dinosaurs is just
accepted as settled science and is pretty much disposed of in a
sentence. Rightly so, as it is settled science. There's a four-page
discussion of feather evolution, which seems to follow more or less the
Prum & Brush theory.
Oregon State is still a hotbed of BANDits and MANIACS. From the Auk:
https://academic.oup.com/auk/article/134/4/925/5149118
Whoever let Ruben review a book on avian paleontology?
Jealous because you weren't offered a chance to review it? :) :)
I find Darrin Naish's review perfectly adequate.
He spends most of
his time on the first three of 13 chapters,
Because the others are noncontroversial?
Because that happens to be his particular obsession.
and in the process dredges
up, of all things, James & Pourtless.
Which you alleged in the past year to be a laughingstock, without going into detail as to why.
It is indeed, and I would be happy to elaborate if you like.
One thing in its favor: it did include non-dinosaurian archosaurs in the analysis.
Yes, that's one thing. Too bad about the rest.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)