[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>By the way - where do we stand on the I II III/II III IV digits
Still controversial. Most people, though, side with I II III.
>believe Archy and all modern birds and "protobirds" have II III IV; any
>III theropods will just have to have sprung separately from 4 or 5
>forms in the T (maybe even something like Protoavis).
By what do you define "protobird". Are they "protobirds" in Paulian
sense or coelurosaurian sense? It should be noted that if we make
Herrerasaurus a theorpod, the digits are I II III. If Herrerasaurus is
not a theropod, or even dinosaurian, then the issue is up in the air
because the first known theropods only have four fingers of uncertain
Protoavis is far too specialized in its wrist structure and braincase
structure to be ancestral to the other theropods ( carnosaurs ).
Personally, I think Burke & Feduccia's argument is flawed because it
assumes an awful lot in the developments of the theropod and bird manus.
>John V Jackson email@example.com
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com