[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=
>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.