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


Darren Naish wrote:
> Re the _Thylacoleo_ claw (I think these posts were referring to the pollex of
> the animal - it is divergent and apparently somewhat opposable to other 
> digits).
> Joe Daniel says..
> > The problem with this is that the claw is clearly a specialization
> > having nothing to do with climbing. If it did, then many of the truly 
> > arboreal
> > animals would have possessed something like it. They do not.
> This isn't a sound argument: you may as well say, for example, that because
> pangolins have scales, other formicivores can't eat ants, or that, as birds 
> have
> feathers, no non-feathered vertebrate can fly.

There seems to be a misinterpretation here.  We were talking about a
comparison between the Thylacoleo claw and the dromeaosaur sickle claw. 
I think my argument is sound in that I claimed that if the claw were a
specialization for climbing, other climbers would probably have
developed something similar, convergent evolution and all that.  This is
not the case.  I said nothing about others not being able to climb
because they lack it.  I fear I don't understand the logic of your

I apologize to anyone my earlier post may have offended.  In my haste I
rather arrogantly overstated my case and used poor wording.  Never
claimed to be perfect but I try my best in my imperfect fashion:)

Joe Daniel