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

Reevolving bones?

You wrote: 
>        As an aside for George, if the shaft is cartilaginous, the return to
>quadrudactyly in Therizinosauroidea should make more sense. Although I
>maintain that the complete redevelopment of the proximal portion of MT I is
>not too hard to believe, if MT I were merely cartilaginous, ossifying it
>should represent less of a burden to George's concept of morphological
>evolution. There, see George, they *can* be theropods after all. :)

So in order for Therizinosauroidea to be a theropod, it would have to have it's 
metatarsal I, which in your view was just cartalagous in it's predessors (which 
would have to include the whole toe for it to work), then MT 
1 re-'boneized'. 

Then all thereopods have a cartalagous MT 1 so it had a 'phatom' toe.

Just another way for cladist to explain something to fit what they want, and 
not to see who impossible it really is. Reevolving a toe, that was totally 
lost, to be exactly the way it's suppose to be is totally insane. 

Is there any modern evidance to support this? In living genera?