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

Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #26

In a message dated 95-11-22 11:51:53 EST, Robert.J.Meyerson@uwrf.edu (Rob
Meyerson) writes:

>But isn't there concern about the validity of _Protoavis_?  If so, then
>should this be added?

Yes, there's always concern about the validity of any taxon. In the case of
_Protoavis_, some have suggested that it is composite, which is possible, but
if so there seem to be no bones in common among the two or three taxa that
are supposedly mixed together. Also, is it said that Sankar plastered up the
skull too much to resemble a bird, which only a re-examination of the skull
material can disclose. But in any case there is a residue of
small-theropod-like postcranial material in the specimen that begs for an
explanation and can certainly serve as a basis for removing the doubt from
_Protoavis_. I think Sankar has a paper in _Archaeopteryx_ for 1994 or 1995
on the postcrania of _Protoavis_, but I haven't seen it yet (too busy to
track it down).