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

Re: BADD BCF



>In fact, there is no evidence to support the presence of a patagium in avia=
n
>evolution, and much to refute it (with regards to wing morphology, shoulder
>morphology, featers, etc.).

There may be no blatant skeletal evidence to support the presence of the=
 patagium, but there is some preservational (read circumstancial).  Have you=
 noticed that all _Archaeopterix_ skeletons are preserved with the wings=
 extended?  Not too suprising in itself, but take a close look at the wing=
 bones.  The forearm bones always has that backwards pointing V, that I=
 mentioned earlier.  Also, the wrist is flexed in the opposite way from the=
 elboe (decreasing the likelyhood of this being a case of rigormortis).  Now=
 if Archy was flying with it's wing held in this position, it would be=
 reasonable to conclude that something was bridging that gap between the=
 shoulder and wrist.  I agree that the skeletal evidence is not all that=
 great, but I suggest that the patagia existed in a rudimentary state, which=
  didn't leave blatant clues to it's existance.

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 to=
 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 considered=
 close cousins rather than family members.

Rob

***
"Don't Panic!"