> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8408
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Archaeopteryx might be better described as simply an early feathered
> dromoaeosaur rather than a bird.
What's the difference? "Bird" isn't a technical term. As an informal
term, it usually means a flying theropod, and Archaeopteryx clearly
could fly. It's also not a dromaeosaur but either avialan or avian,
depending on which definition you like. The new specimen shows the genus
to be primitive in a few ways we were not previously sure of, but none
of this changes its phylogenetic position.
deowll - 07 Dec 2005 01:27 GMT
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8408
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> to be primitive in a few ways we were not previously sure of, but none
> of this changes its phylogenetic position.
If it has feathers and uses them to fly...
John Harshman - 07 Dec 2005 04:56 GMT
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8408
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> If it has feathers and uses them to fly...
If that's the criterion, Archaeopteryx is a bird regardless of where its
hallux is. Some dromaeosaurs may be birds too, depending on just what
you mean by "fly". Then again, ostriches aren't birds.
deowll - 10 Dec 2005 05:20 GMT
>>>>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8408
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> hallux is. Some dromaeosaurs may be birds too, depending on just what
> you mean by "fly". Then again, ostriches aren't birds.
But grandpa could.