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

Dinogeorge Digest #8

Subj:   Re: Protoceratops & questions
Date:   98-07-06 13:14:30 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     qilongia@yahoo.com
CC:     forelf@internet19.fr

In a message dated 98-07-06 03:05:09 EDT, qilongia@yahoo.com writes:

<< Yes, I meant *Ultrasauros*, and I appologize for the mix-up. >>

We now know that _Ultrasauros_ is based on material from the _Supersaurus_
individual at the Dry Mesa Quarry, and therefore _Ultrasauros_ is a junior
synonym of _Supersaurus_ (currently the correct name for the Dry Mesa
diplodocid). There is apparently some brachiosaurid material at Dry Mesa, but
it belongs to either _Brachiosaurus altithorax_ itself or to an unnamed (and
presently unnamable) species of that genus (_Brachiosaurus_

Subj:   Re: BCF& COMMENTS ON IT (really long)
Date:   98-07-05 16:04:28 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     jrccea@bellsouth.net
CC:     m_troutman@hotmail.com

In a message dated 98-07-05 11:23:36 EDT, jrccea@bellsouth.net writes (quoting

<< > Wing asymmetry occurs everywhere in the wing:
 > The BADD model, in which the forelimbs must preacquire their asymmetry for
 > reason unrelated to flight, has tremendous difficulty explaining it.
 It doesn't need to explain it, because there is no need for a
 preacquistion of asymmetry. See above. Asymmetry can come later. >>

In theropods, forelimb asymmetry does >not< come later. Theropod forelimbs
are strongly asymmetric even as early as _Herrerasaurus_ and _Eoraptor_. But
since you maintain that asymmetry is not required for a volant wing, you are
right: It doesn't require an explanation; it is simply an exaggeration of the
preexisting condition (all tetrapod limbs are asymmetric, after all), exapted
for flying in those dinobirds that could make use of it. I'll stop
browbeating BADD on this point.