[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:55:54 +0800 Graeme Worth writes:
>What exactly do you mean by "a long way", Jaime? The Rahona paper states
>that both Rahona and Vorona were found in the same SMALL quarry, without
>relative positions. I haven't seen the Vorona paper, which might have
>info, though doubtful as Rahona hadn't been published at that stage.
>Although Forster et al think it unlikely that the wing is from a
>animal, they are careful to note that the possibility cannot be ruled
>It might be worth noting, however, that their cladistic analysis was
>both with and without the wing characters included, and in both cases
>came out in the same place, with Archaeopteryx and (Unenlagia? - don't
>the paper in front of me at the moment). So from the point of view of
>dinosaur-bird relationships, whether or not the wing belongs to Rahona
>Vorona may not be that critical.
I spoke with Cathy Forster a couple of days ago, and she filled me in on
their analysis of Rahona. Other fossils in the quarry are jumbled
together, whereas the recovered parts of Rahona were articulated. The
wing material was some 20 cm away from the hind part; however, the
character of the wing bones (color, mineralization, etc.) matches that of
the hind quarters. And, as you mentioned, even without the wing, the
pelvis-tail-leg-spine portion is a dinobird.
<Scott Robert Ladd>
send personal e-mail to: email@example.com
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]