[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
--Original Message-- From: Larry To: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
<email@example.com>Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org : Wednesday, February 24, 1999
>I`m not sure what Rahonavis has. I see very little written about it on the
>net. I seem to remember it having those bony struts in the tail...(think I
>saw it on TV). Anyway, I was just wondering if it wasn`t considered closer
>to Dromaeosaur albertensis (lets say), than it is to the Archie group.
"Closer" - that's their term.
Your original notion, that Rahonavis and the droms split off some way along
the Ax -> modern birds line is fine.
>And that pedal claw, is that considered a synapomorphy with the Dromaeosaur
>condition, or did it evolve separately?
The original herpextensibility of the 2nd toe was the basic synapomorphy, if
you like, that Archaeopteryx shared with all the other funny-toe-2'ed
merchants; the bigger, non-ambulatory claw is also a synapomorphy between R
and the droms, in the sense that the droms inherited it from R.
--Original Message-- From: Larry Febo <email@example.com>To: T. Mike Keesey
<firstname.lastname@example.org>: Thursday, February 25, 1999 01:22 AM
[On the subject of the cladistic explantion:]
>Well, I think I`m beginning to understand
When you start to understand it, that's when you want to start worrying!