[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: BADD BCF
>This I don't follow at all. What I'd like to see is "patagia on the dromeys=
>which would be good evidence for a flying stage in their ancestry (why else=
>patagium on a cursorial animal with grasping forelimbs?).
Exactly. This would be a strong point in your favor.
>"No patagium in
>dromeys" tells you nothing one way or the other: they may never have had it=
>or they may have lost it secondarily when their wings reverted to the sole
>grasping and seizing function.
Although difficult to prove one way or another, the second possibility seems=
weaker. If BCF is correct (I'm on the fence at this point as far as=
whether I agree with BCF or not), then the wings would have reverted *back*=
into a grasping arm. The arm would still reasonably show wing-like=
characteristics, so if there is no evidence of the dromey arm being used as=
a wing, then BCF is no longer valid.
>Besides, known dromeys and Archy are already close cousins (different
>families, same suborder as far as I can see); they are both descended from =
>Archy-like common ancestor (which may or may not have had a patagium).
Which is the point in question. Another clinching point, how far from the=
bird/dino split (I know, I know, birds are dinosaurs;-) was Archy? This=
may also provide a clue to a patagial-wing. If Archy is close to the=
split, then the odds are pretty good that it did not. If it is far from=
the split, then the odds are even.