[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Quo vadis, T. rex?
On Thu, 1 Feb 1996 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 96-02-01 20:37:01 EST, pharrinj@PLU.edu (Nicholas J.
> Pharris) writes:
> >What I do not agree with is the linking of tyrannosaurs with the much
> >more primitive (ornitholestid-grade) _Compsognathus_ purely on the
> >occurrence of the didactyl condition in these two taxa (or that the
> >arctomet foot evolved in tyrannosaurs from scratch, i.e. from a
> >completely uncompressed foot like that of _Compsognathus_).
> Actually, take a look at the pelvic bones of _Compsognathus_ and see how
> closely they resemble miniature versions of tyrannosaurid pelvic bones. Grow
> a bit of pubic boot, lose a bit of distal ischial enlargement, and "Voila," a
> tyrannosaurid pelvis.
Or take an ornithomimid pelvis, scale it up, and "Voila`," a
tyrannosaurid pelvis in one easy step.
> It really begins to look as if tyrannosaurians grew into ferocious monsters
> quite on their own, as a separate theropod lineage with no particularly close
> sister groups among the other Cretaceous dinosaurs.
Possibly, but IMHO, they are still post-archaeopterygian birds (the two
are by no means mutually incompatible).
> Compy's not their
> _direct_ ancestor, but it could well be close.
Again I say, if Compy proves to have a cryptometatarsalian foot, with
metatarsal III shrouded at the ankle joint, and an avian V1
configuration, then we'll talk.
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
"The gene pool needs a little chlorine."