化石講場-Fossils Board 首個古生物/恐龍/化石華語討論區 - [恐龍地帶 Dinosaur Zone] - 由龍到鳥的次序

化石講場-Fossils Board » [恐龍地帶 Dinosaur Zone] » 由龍到鳥的次序

上一主題

下一主題

Franco仔 (震旦紀)
[哺乳類] 金牌會員
Rank: 5

UID 2290
精華 0
積分 1761
帖子 1735
閱讀權限 90
註冊 2007-6-27
來自香港
狀態離線

[廣告]:

QUOTE:

原帖由 vkashima 於 2008-7-8 05:47 PM 發表
Thanks for Share.
無錯，生物的進化是很漫長的過程，可能途中的不是龍也不是鳥了。

哪由猿到人是否也有過渡的生物？正如當初始祖鳥的出現也突兀 ...

當然''

我愛活化石!

2008-7-9 02:02 PM

#11

rock-tw (馬英走~~)
[魚類] 中級會員
Rank: 3

UID 3056
精華 0
積分 435
帖子 380
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2007-11-13
來自高雄
狀態離線

[廣告]:

看完珍古德版主發出的小盜龍movie，好像說小盜龍是恐龍演化而來的，但可能不是鳥類的前身啊

2008-7-12 08:14 AM

#12

Dinosaurprince (Dinosaur Prince)
[魚類] 中級會員
Rank: 3

UID 3198
精華 2
積分 377
帖子 272
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2008-2-5
來自 Hong Kong
狀態離線

[廣告]:

回復 #2 hunter-hunted 的帖子

Some scientists are attempting to set up a system that can do this, called PhyloCode. However, this system is based on relationships, so even if it's defined, whether Archaeopteryx is or is not a bird might *still* be unknown.

Under this system, there are basically 2 opinions. One is that "bird" should be defined with Archaeopteryx in mind. If that's done, Archaeopteryx will be a bird no matter what it's most closely related to, and no matter what we find out. It will be a bird because we say so. Like planet comparison, that would be sort of like defining "planet" as anything Pluto-sized and bigger.

Another opinion is to define "bird" to mean only living birds and the extinct birds that are more closely related to them than prehistoric types. Under that definition, Archaopteryx would not be a bird. Neither would Confusiusornis, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, etc. That would be, in my personal opinion, sort of like defining "planet" to mean anything Neptune-sized and bigger. Meaning Earth and Mars are not planets, let alone Pluto

A very small minority opinion is to define "bird" based on a key feature like feathers. That would make Archaeopteryx a bird, but also things like dromaeosaurs and oviraptors, and possibly even T. rex. That would be kind of like defining "planet" as anything round that orbits a star.

There's also the issue of which group "bird" corresponds to. For ages, "bird" meant the same thing as Class Aves. Most people who like definition #2 want to sort of "re-assign" "bird" to mean something else, and keep Aves for only modern birds.

As i think, we can define the stage of feather or even bone structures. Say :The fusion of modern bird enable them to fly and there is more bones fused together eg most of the bones on modern bird's tail had fused together .... we can measure the degree of fusion and define which is bird and which is not. By the way, no matter how you define the organisms, the classification just allow us to handle the informations more easily.... the god is not nessary to let us to group all the life easily

2008-7-13 03:08 AM

#13