[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


In a message dated 95-12-05 11:14:41 EST, Robert.J.Meyerson@uwrf.edu (Rob
Meyerson) writes:

>Admittedly, there are gaps in this reasoning.  I have to add that if it can=
> be shown that the patagium evolved after Archy, then it would spell doom
> BCF.  Since the arm of Archy is nearly identical to the later dromeys, and=
> the patagia evolving *after* Archy, then how could the dromeys be the=
> descendants?  I'm afraid that birds and dromeys would have to be
> close cousins rather than family members.

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 a
patagium on a cursorial animal with grasping forelimbs?). "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.

Besides, known dromeys and Archy are already close cousins (different
families, same suborder as far as I can see); they are both descended from an
Archy-like common ancestor (which may or may not have had a patagium).