File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
>> Anonymous
best birds EVAR.
i forgot their name, but i know that they smell and when are babies they have a 'hook' or claw or whatever on their wings so they can climb back up the tree if they fall.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>86271
wait no. i thought it was a Hoatzin, but i might be wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>86275
I believe that's an archeaptoryx or somthing.
>> Anonymous
>>86281
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoatzin

cool stuff :<
>> Anonymous
>>86281
the internet says its a hoatzin, not a prehistoric dinosaur. also its spelled archeaptoryx.
>> Anonymous
>>86283
Archaeopteryx
>> Anonymous
>>86283
Which makes it a historic dinosaur.
>> Anonymous
>>86283
Gesundheit.
>> Moo !XBOXgikTFw
Stinkbird stinkbird poo :<
>> Anonymous
Good lord, is dat sum Chocobo!
>> Anonymous
fukken A!
I want one of those chocobos too!!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dinosaurbird has fingers
>> Anonymous
Dinosaurbird is also bullshit made up by archaeologists who were trying to make a link between dinosaurs and birds. Recently revealed.

OP has a cute birdie and the Hoatzin is quite pretteh.
>> Anonymous
>>87364
Can't tell if you're joking or genuinely retarded.

Do you even know what a fucking archaeologist is?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>87364
That IS a Hoatzin. They have fingers when young.
>> Anonymous
>>86266
That'd be a really cute little bird, if not for those murderous eyes.
>> Anonymous
Excuse me, that was my mistake. I meant paleontologist (not sure if that's spelled right; not typically in my vocabulary and I'm a cultural history major). And no, I'm not joking. Try the National Museum of Natural History. Unless you think they're lying. :/
>> Anonymous
>>87364
Revealed by who? Your pastor? GTFO.
>> Anonymous
Revealed by logic? The fossils they found did not have solid bones, nor was there any evidence of feathers. Unless they've turned around and retracted that statement, insofar as I know, research has revealed that to be true.

:) And I'm sorry, but when did ad hominem become an accepted tactic in debate? Fallacy makes you look silly. My religious position (or lack thereof, as the case happens to be) is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
>> Anonymous
Ack, mistype, again. They had solid bones, not hollow.
>> Anonymous
The Archaeoraptor hoax that National Geographic fell for? The one that some poor Chinese excavators glued together in order to get rich off of in 1999? That's what you're referring to?

You do realize that there are 8+ Archaeopteryx fossils and numerous fossils of bipedal dinosaurs with protofeathers, don't you? The damage caused by that hoax has all but been nullified by genuine articles discovered in the past few years.
>> Anonymous
Define "past few"--that's a fairly vague number. I know there was the ordeal with Hoyle and Spetner... That one? Maybe I'm getting my information confused, which is entirely possible. And, upon reviewing dates on research, that seems more and more likely.
>> Anonymous
>>87413
No, the Hoyle and Spetner thing occurred in the mid-80's and was fairly completely dismantled by the British Narural History Museum soon after. The ArchaeoRAPTOR incident occurred in 1999 being glued together by a farmer and smuggled out of China in 97, and purchased in 98. The formal paper was rejected by peer-reviewed journals but National Geographic published it anyhow, made an ass of themselves, and were forced to retract it.

Just prior to but overshadowed by the Archaeoraptor hoax was the discovery of Sinosauropteryx, whose fossil matrix contained down feathers, in 2002 the feathered dromaeosaur Cryptovolans was discovered, and more recently (05 I believe) the primitive bird Confuciosornis was discovered.
>> Anonymous
I'd heard fleeting mention of the Chinese event, but the others I hadn't heard about, at all. Very interesting; I'll have to go look up articles on them, some time.
>> Anonymous
>>87419
I forgot, but you might also want to look up the Microraptors discovered in 2001 and 2002. They're similar to the hoaxed Archaeoraptor, apart from being genuine, so much so that some sticklers for naming procedures want the genus to be renamed Archaeoraptor (though that's unlikely to happen because of the associated stigma).
>> Anonymous
>>87429
Edit; also, the tail from the Archaeoraptor hoax turned-out to actually belong to the Microraptor, which is the primary reason for the attempts to rename it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
this thread is now about kissing fish
>> Anonymous
>>87399
Still, Hoatzin have fingers.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>87435
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I want a pet Microraptor.
>> Anonymous
>>87276
There is no way that thing could have existed, just looking at the body structure you can tell if it had it would never have been capable of flight
>> Anonymous
>>87786
lol I was going to respond "micro raptors were supposed to have glided tree to tree they didnt really fly" then I noticed you were refering to the picture of the hoatzin bird from south america and I lolled.
>> Anonymous
>>87786
christ. see>>86275.
it ALREADY EXISTS.

only when they are young like>>87383do they have finger/claw things.
>> Anonymous
Plus, penguins can't fly either. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
>> Anonymous
>>87399

I don't buy a lot of these "this is no longer real' garbage that scientists are saying these days. Instead of doing actual research they spit out whatever so they can get more grant money. The more controversial the better. It makes one sick to think about all the things not being reserached to their fullest.

Instead of AIDS treatment or a cure we get 'this fuzzy dinosaur is fake and this whole city is actualy a volcano (we just figured this out four mintues ago, pretty neat huh?)'.
>> Anonymous
>>87847
The poster was referring to an incident in which some farmer glued together two unrelated fossils, a scientist eager for publicity ignored it, and a magazine jumped the gun and published the paper anyway in spite of it being rejected by peer-review. Like the Brontosaurus, when something is wrong it's the responsibility of the scientific community to find mistakes and correct them because otherwise you'll find studies based on previous discoveries to be false. If you're trying to map out the evolutionary tree of life on Earth you don't want chimeras and unicorns in the middle of your cladogram mucking everything up.

And just so you know, paleontologists are probably never going to fine a cure for AIDS.