Almost a "Bird": A New Theropod Slightly More Primitive than Archaeopteryx
Augray
(pronounced "an-key-ornis"), a theropod dinosaur from western
Liaoning, China. The age of the deposits it was entombed in are
uncertain (they're of "Jurassic-Cretaceous age"), but in a
phylogenetic analysis Anchiornis comes out as a bit more primitive
than Archaeopteryx.
Anchiornis is the smallest known non-avian dinosaur, and probably
weighted no more than 110 grams when alive. It was slightly longer
than one foot in length, but unfortunately, the head, part of the
neck, and the end of the tail are missing, so an accurate measurement
of its length isn't possible.
Like Archaeopteryx, no sternum is preserved, and a wishbone is
present. The ulna (a bone in the forelimb) is slightly bowed, and only
slightly thicker than the radius (another forelimb bone), which may
argue against Anchiornis being able to fly, but the first phalanx of
manual digit II is almost as thick as the ulna, which (to me) may be a
point in favor of flight, since flight feathers attach to that bone in
Archaeopteryx and living birds. But although patches of feathers were
found, no flight feathers were discovered with the fossil.
In addition, I've read that additional specimens have been found that
are more complete, and in better condition, than the example described
in the current paper, so expect to hear more about this animal in
2009.
Xu X., Zhao Q., M. Norell, C. Sullivan, D. Hone, G. Erickson, Wang
X.-L., Han F.-L., & Guo Y. 2009. A new feathered maniraptoran dinosaur
fossil that fills a morphological gap in avian origin. Chinese Science
Bulletin.
Available on-line at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p5k5310462451jq3/fulltext.pdf
Happy New Year!
Desertphile
wrote:
This is soooooo cool! Charles Darwin would be smiling (of course
the past 150 years would also have made him smile). Yet another
intermediate fossil. But.... (on '3' folks) that means there's two
more missing gaps!
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
cephalocordata
A great way to kick off the year of Darwin, indeed. Hopefully ongoing
research will reward us with a geological age of this critter and a
cladistic analysis that includes Epidexipteryx and the
Scansoriopterygids. I'd love to know where they nest, when Anchiornis
is thrown into the mix!
Augray - The place, where you read about the aditional Anchiornis
specimens, wouldn't by any chance be Dave Hone's blog?
http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/anchiornis-a-new-basal-avialian-from-china/
Augray
<copy_...@rocketmail.com> wrote in
<f4808def-52ce-4bbb...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
[big snip]
>Augray - The place, where you read about the aditional Anchiornis
>specimens, wouldn't by any chance be Dave Hone's blog?
>http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/anchiornis-a-new-basal-avialian-from-china/
Yes, indeed it was.
UC
>
> Happy New Year!
Aracheopteryx was not a 'bird'. The term 'bird' refers to modern
animals.
John Harshman
I sincerely hope nobody decides to belabor this at length. That way lies
a 10,000-post thread, with UC at the end no less clueless.
UC
wrote:
I'm not going to get into that length, since you are quite clueless
about semiotics.
Augray
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uranium-9f987485-771c-...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
:
But apparently it's OK to use the word "fish" when referring to
animals that "...have been around a lot longer than whales...".
Because after all, "People use words such as 'fish' to refer to
present-day fishes...", and 'fish' is a colloquial term.
And hey, it looks like it's OK to use the term 'whale' when talking
about a certain group of extinct creatures too!
But that's puzzling, because both are
...vernacular term[s] which refers to a GROUP of animals related
by appearance and general morphology, with which we have direct
or recent experience. It is intended to refer to the everyday
objects of experience and their recent predecessors.
But then, since *no* *one*, especially *you*, actually *follows* this
rule, it's pretty obvious that it's not a rule at all, and you're just
trolling.
UC
> <uranium-9f987485-771c-4196-9e81-f6d6fd117...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
ah but fish have remained more or less the same for eons...not so Aves!
John Harshman
Augray
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uranium-08f715e6-1bf1-...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
:
Irrelevant. The important part of this silly rule is the "direct or
recent experience", and not the morphology/anatomy. After all,
according to the rule, a three million-year-old creature of the genus
Anas isn't a bird, even though its anatomy is "more or less the same"
as that of "birds". Hence, "...remained more or less the same of eons"
is yet another pathetic and foolhardy attempt at trolling.
cephalocordata
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
Thank Dog palaeonthologists usualy aren't this obsessed with
semiotics. Imagine how boring it would be if dinosaur-names were
nothing but objective descriptions of bones and excavation-localities
like _Aerosteon riocoloradensis_
No "near-bird" "swift plunderer" "soundly sleeping dragon" or "king of
tyrant-lizards"
John Harshman
John S. Wilkins
> I'm not going to get into that length, since you are quite clueless
> about semiotics.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
chris thompson
wrote:
And I agree- UC is full o' tics...or something sounding suspiciously
like that.
Chris
UC
Language usage is the issue.
UC
wrote:
> Augray wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:10:01 -0800 (PST), UC
> > <uranium-9f987485-771c-4196-9e81-f6d6fd117...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
I shan't. You are incapable of following....
Conceptual language, the language of everyday usage, is fundamentally
different. Cladistics, which takes into consideration the history of a
lineage, does not factor into ordinary usage. A cow is not a fish,
even if the ancestors of cows were 'fish' (notice the quotes!).
UC
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:10:01 -0800 (PST), UC
> > <uranium-9f987485-771c-4196-9e81-f6d6fd117...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
I shan't. You are incapable of following....
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Yes, yes, we know. There are no extinct turtles, no extinct birds, no
extinct apes.
And the Neanderthals weren't human, because they existed before we
coined the term "human".
Did languages exist before we had words for them?
Kermit
UC
Use Linnaen language for scientific applications and all will be fine.
That's what it's for. Don't try to reshape ordinary language...it
doesn't work.
John Harshman
And we're off. Here's another fruitless appeal to stop feeding the
troll. If you want to experience this again, just reread any of the
threads from UC's last appearance.
UC
wrote:
Sorry, I really not going to argue unless you've paid.
UC
Sorry, I really not going to argue unless you've paid.
Ye Old One
>> Available on-line at http://www.springerlink.com/content/p5k5310462451jq3/fulltext.pdf
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>
>Aracheopteryx was not a 'bird'.
Yes it is. In fact its name gives you the clue.
> The term 'bird' refers to modern
>animals.
Yes, and to a lot of extinct ones as well.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Wrong again.
--
Bob.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:10:01 -0800 (PST), UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> Aracheopteryx was not a 'bird'.
Good bloody gods.
> Yes it is. In fact its name gives you the clue.
> > The term 'bird' refers to modern animals.
> Yes, and to a lot of extinct ones as well.
It had feathers: therefore it was a bird.
AC
And you have been repeatedly beaten on it. Then you run like hell and
disappear, and then you reappear. You're an idiot.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
AC
John Harshman
John Harshman
John Harshman
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:39:51 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:10:01 -0800 (PST), UC
>> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>> Aracheopteryx was not a 'bird'.
>
> Good bloody gods.
>
>> Yes it is. In fact its name gives you the clue.
>
>>> The term 'bird' refers to modern animals.
>
>> Yes, and to a lot of extinct ones as well.
>
> It had feathers: therefore it was a bird.
>
>
John Harshman
UC
wrote:
I'm really not going to argue, seriously. I promise.
cephalocordata
*fixed*
unrestra...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Sigh. I'm sorry.
<hangs head, scuffs dirt with toe>
It's like a twelve year-old boy trying not to look at dirty pictures.
Kermit
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
>I sincerely hope nobody decides to belabor this at length. That way lies
>a 10,000-post thread, with UC at the end no less clueless.
Heaven forfend; as you point out, the last one showed him to
be essentially unteachable.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
We all know your opinion. Your opinion is wrong. Get over
yourself.
(Sorry, John, but this arrogant idiot invites abuse. Yes,
he's an ignorant troll, but occasionally even trolls require
response. For those familiar with newspaper terminology,
"Thirty".)
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:39:51 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:10:01 -0800 (PST), UC
>> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>> Aracheopteryx was not a 'bird'.
>
>Good bloody gods.
>
>> Yes it is. In fact its name gives you the clue.
>
>> > The term 'bird' refers to modern animals.
>
>> Yes, and to a lot of extinct ones as well.
>
>It had feathers: therefore it was a bird.
Mmmm. Not sure if feathers were enough, but there were many more
things which made it a bird.
UC is, one again, making a blood fool of himself.
--
Bob.
UC
Poke her with the soft cushion!
The comfy chair? The comfy chair?
chris thompson
Feathers are sufficient but not necessary to make something a
dinosaur.
Chris
John Harshman
Please refrain as much as possible from extending a UC thread.
Strange Creature
Have any movies shown feathers on an
Allosaurus or T. Rex yet?
Since dinosaurs were shown with scales
for so long in the movies, feathers on a
dinosaur seems like it looks silly,
however a lot of evidence seems to
show that it is accurate for some species.
cephalocordata
There's been a few good documentaries with feathered theropods, but
none in theatrical movies that I've heard of. The slim mohawk on top
of the raptors in Jurassic Park 3 was a spit in the face to all
featheryearning dino enthusiats.
I agree with you, that the usual museum replica of a dromaeosaur with
glued-on chicken feathers pointing out in all directions looks very,
very silly. Too bad only the AMNH has the skilled staff/sufficient
budget to create something that looks like a functional, well groomed
plumage.
But since you ask. Rather than feathers, we'd expect to find hair-like
'dinofuzz' on T.rex - perhaps downy feathers. And keep in mind how
litle fur we se on largebodied mamals like the elephant and the rhino.
The integuement of T.rex could very well be equally sparse.
Secondly, there is only little evidence to suggest a fuzzy Allosaur,
since feathers and fuss has only been found within the clade
'Coelurosauria' (so far, that is).
John Harshman
> Have any movies shown feathers on an
> Allosaurus or T. Rex yet?
I don't know of any.
> Since dinosaurs were shown with scales
> for so long in the movies, feathers on a
> dinosaur seems like it looks silly,
> however a lot of evidence seems to
> show that it is accurate for some species.
>
Probably not Allosaurus, and likely no more for T. rex than hair is
visible on an elephant. Though there is a feathered tyrannosaurid,
Dilong paradoxus.
Greg G.
Yes, you will.
cephalocordata
Wait, sorry. Actually there IS this one movie with feathered dinosaurs
in it. Beipiaosaurs to be specific, but er.. well, look for youself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_Before_Time_XIII:_The_Wisdom_of_Friends
While we're on the topic of Spielberg and his mohawk-dinos, you could
say,
Greg G.
wrote:
> cephalocordata wrote:
> >> animals.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> >> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> > Thank Dog palaeonthologists usualy aren't this obsessed with
> > semiotics. Imagine how boring it would be if dinosaur-names were
> > nothing but objective descriptions of bones and excavation-localities
> > like _Aerosteon riocoloradensis_
>
> > No "near-bird" "swift plunderer" "soundly sleeping dragon" or "king of
> > tyrant-lizards"
>
> This is why semiotics is useless. I say full-otics or nothing.
What good is half an otic?
Rusty Sites
I think he must actually be looking for abuse.
John S. Wilkins
Less than a full -etic. More than an -emic.
The correct otics are called... wait for it... orthotics.
Michael Siemon
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
...
> > What good is half an otic?
>
> Less than a full -etic. More than an -emic.
>
> The correct otics are called... wait for it... orthotics.
My feet hurt.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Don't try to reshape ordinary language...it doesn't work.
This is of course an utter falsehood, as has been
explained to you many, many times. There is in fact
an entire dedicated industry earning its living
based simply on _describing_ the neverending
reshaping of ordinary language.
http://www.bookfinder4u.com/search/Neologisms.html
How about you shut up on the subject until you can
wrap your mind around that simple reality? You wasted
gigabit-bucketfulls of bytes and petaseconds of human
time arguing via the tools of invincible ignorance
your "words have immutable meanings" idiocy last
time you dropped by talk.orgins.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Don't try to reshape ordinary language...it
> doesn't work.
This is of course an utter falsehood, as has been
explained to you many, many times. There is in fact
an entire dedicated industry earning its living
based simply on _describing_ the neverending
reshaping of ordinary language.
http://www.bookfinder4u.com/search/Neologisms.html
How about you shut up on the whole subject until you
can wrap your mind around that simple reality?
You wasted giga-bit-bucketfulls of bytes and
peta-seconds of human time arguing via the tools of
Kent Paul Dolan
John Harshman
The best way to make UC shut up is not to respond to him.
UC
I have never maintained that words have immutable meaning, but they do
have durable, identifiable meanings.
heekster
I'd have guessed psychotic.
At the very great risk of redundancy.
Ken Shackleton
Heck...it's tough enough for a 46 year old man!
>
> Kermit
Mitchell Coffey
Biotics. I see you double.
Mitchell
Dan Drake
> On Jan 7, 7:08ÿam, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 9:52 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > The science is optional:
> >
> > > > I'm not going to get into that length, since you are quite clueless
> > > > about semiotics.
> >
> > > --
> > > John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> > > scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
> >
> > Language usage is the issue.
>
> Yes, yes, we know. There are no extinct turtles, no extinct birds, no
> extinct apes.
>
> And the Neanderthals weren't human, because they existed before we
> coined the term "human".
>
> Did languages exist before we had words for them?
>
> Kermit
>
Yeah, and before there were people to observe, were the cats alive or
dead?
Amateaur pedants might assert that at that point, there only wildcats, but
did anybody *observe* them being wild? Well, then!
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
Dan Drake
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 8:50ÿpm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > >> animals.- Skjul tekst i anf›rselstegn -
> >
> > >> - Vis tekst i anf›rselstegn -
> >
> > > Thank Dog palaeonthologists usualy aren't this obsessed with
> > > semiotics. Imagine how boring it would be if dinosaur-names were
> > > nothing but objective descriptions of bones and excavation-localities
> > > like _Aerosteon riocoloradensis_
> >
> > > No "near-bird" "swift plunderer" "soundly sleeping dragon" or "king of
> > > tyrant-lizards"
> >
> > This is why semiotics is useless. I say full-otics or nothing.
>
> Biotics. I see you double.
I've been opposed to thosef since I was seven, when I had pneumonia. Saved
my life.
Walter Bushell
"Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote:
> > Biotics. I see you double.
>
> I've been opposed to thosef since I was seven, when I had pneumonia. Saved
> my life.
Both of them?
Kent Paul Dolan
> This is why semiotics is useless.
What? There's always room for improvements
in punctuation symbols.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Please refrain as much as possible from extending
> a UC thread.
This is not, technically, a UC thread, since Augrey
was the OP.
UC, however, despite repeating promises not to do
so, in this very thread, continues hir obsessive
compulsive behavior of shoveling meaningless
excrement from a diseased mind where postings about
science belong.
xanthian.
John Harshman
When UC joins a thread, it generally becomes a UC thread, because he
hijacks it. Perhaps it would be better for me to have merely advised
against responding to him, at least when he obviously wants to continue
his pointless argument.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Please refrain as much as possible from extending
> a UC thread.
This is not, technically, a UC thread, since Augrey
was the OP.
UC, however, despite repeating promises not to do
so, in this very thread, continues hir obsessive
compulsive behavior of shoveling meaningless
excrement from a diseased mind where postings about
science belong.
How that is any different than the equal idiocy of
Adman/Uriel, or Sean Pitman, or how the waste of
bandwidth is any worse, is hard to quantify.
xanthian.