[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Arboreal? Flying?
At 06:32 AM 4/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Grant Harding wrote:
>> Which of these animals was probably arboreal, and which could fly?
>Archy, Patagopteryx, Iberomesornis, and Ichthyornis are birds, and I'm
>pretty sure all of them could fly.
Whoa!!! Patagopteryx is most definitely a NON-flying bird!!
>Compsognathus could have been arboreal; it's certainly small enough.
>Procompsognathus -- is that even a valid taxon anymore?
Even if the skull doesn't belong with the body (as Sereno and others have
suggested), the postcranium is still a valid ceratosaurian taxon.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology Email:email@example.com
University of Maryland Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD 20742 Fax: 301-314-9661