On Thu, 21 Dec 95 14:04:46 MST you wrote:
>I meant to reply to this earlier, but lost the post.
>On Thu, 30 Nov 95 21:34:10 EST...Stephen Jones said:
SJ>As I understand it, what you are saying is that, once upon a time:
>
> 1. A bird similar to Archaeopteryx had a genetic mutation in its
> sex-cells that caused one of its offspring to be born with less teeth
> by weight. Barring a macro-mutation, this would be a very small loss,
> say 0.001% of total teeth by weight. This would be probably 0.0001%
> of the total bird's weight. In grams it would probably amount to say
> 0.001% of a gram. Perhaps Denis can give realistic figures for teeth
> weight?
Before we go any further, I would like our resident dentist, Denis, to
estimate: 1. the total weight of Archaeopteryx's teeth; 2. its total
body weight (it was pigeon- sized, see below) and 3. the weight of its
first incipient teeth:
"With its reptilian body and tail yet undeniably birdlike wings and
feathers, Archaeopteryx provides paleontologists with their most
conclusive evidence for the evolution of birds from reptiles. This
pigeon-size prehistoric bird..." (Wellnhofer P., "Archaeopteryx",
Scientific American, May 1990, p42).
Thanks.
Happy New Year!
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------