[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Archaeopteryx Chimaera (was: Function Talks at Ostrom Symposium)
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
> Ruben et al. do not consider Archie to have a "dinosaur pelvis": indeed,
> they restore it with a hyperopisthopuby not justified by any of the
> specimens. Furthermore, they consider any similarities between the pelves
> of dromaeosaurids and Archie to be superficial (although they consider the
> pelves of theropods and crocodilians "strikingly similar"...).
> With their new model of the Archaeopteryx pelvis, they suggest a
> pelvic-driven pump in Archaeopteryx, as a forerunner to the modern bird
> condition. They do not think that Archie had a hepatic pistion. (Hey, I
> agree with them on this, at least).
One facet of the argument, as I remember it (from the 1997 Ruben paper), is
angle of the pubis. Is this correct and, if so, how easy is it to determine
in life from a mostly 2D fosil?