[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>The date they gave for protoavis was approx. the same time >as archeopteryx
so they postulated that archeopteryx had >been an evolutionary dead end (or
at least a parallel line that >failed to compete).
Protoavis was recovered from sediments dating from the Carnian stage of the
Late Triassic (Dockum Group, Texas), while Archaeopteryx comes from the
Tithonian (Late Jurassic) Solnhofen Limestone of Germany. So, Protoavis
occurs much, *much* earlier than Archaeopteryx.
>It had been my understanding that protoavis was either a hoax >or the
evidence was inconclusive (or misinterpreted).
In all the controversey surrounding Prototavis, I'm not aware that anyone has
ever claimed it to be a hoax.
Caitlin R. Kiernan