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

Re: Pterosaurian Pedal Clinching (Batman! :) )

Ok. ..I`ll look into some of these refs. Always looking for something "new"
about pterosaurs. Thanks for the post Jaime!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jaime A. Headden <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Cc: larryf@capital.net <larryf@capital.net>
Date: Thursday, October 07, 1999 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: Pterosaurian Pedal Clinching (Batman! :) )

>I wrote:
><<Given either of the two theories regarding pterosaur
>evolution, one being the archosaur derivative, and the
>other lepidosauriform>> [_sic_; this should read
>"prolacteriform", as Holtz corrected] <<derived, both
>have ancestors that could be and probably were,
>scansorial or arboreal.>>
>Larry Febo wrote:
><Gee,...I hate to point this out (after Dr Holtz
>already corrected that post)...but...I gotta know! I
>thought the archosaur derived theory had Lagosuchus
>(or perhaps Scleromochlus)) as it`s prime candidate.
>As Padian proposed it, these forms were considered to
>be "cursorial", and that the evolution of pterosaurs
>was from the "ground-up" as also proposed (by some)
>for birds.>
>  Uhm ... I'm not denying Padian's suggestion of
>primary cursoriality in these animals, and I think I
>said they seemed to be more cursorial than anything
>else in a pervious post, as shown from Sereno and
>Arucci (1992), as well as various Padian articles on
>pterosaurs, Peters' work, and Welnhofer's book;
>however, to clarify my meaning in the post above, I
>suggested that the two lineages have basal members who
>do still show features (including the ball-and-socket
>hip or a form midway between spherical and
>cylindrical, as in *Marasuchus*) plus broad scapular
>blades apparently indicating independantly swinging
>forelimbs, semi-grasping manus, very flexible
>vertebrae, etc., that are quite numerous in arboreal
>or scansorial animals (pers. obsv.; see also Carroll,
>1988 [_Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution_], for
>those looking at books ... and that's all you need for
>ILL ... it's under QE in LOC code.).
><Of course, ...there  may be others out there who
>propose some arboreal archosaur led to pterosaurs,but,
>if that`s the case, I`m unaware of it, and would like
>to know what these alternate theories are, and what
>are the refs.>
>  This should be interesting to discover, but I'm sure
>it goes far back. Early restorations of pterosaurs
>included bat-like squatters that wouldn't climb,
>armored like miniature crocodiles (check out Padian,
>1989, in _Dinosaurs Past and Present_ {v. 2: 65-81}
>for a quick review of changes in perceiving
>pterosaurs, including various restorations over the
>few centuries) so there should not be too much
>problems on this field. However, Padian, followed by
>Unwin and Paul, in numerous papers, have argued for
>the intrinsic climbing _ability_ in pterosaurs, but
>don't read exactitude into this (Padian, 1983:
>_Postilla_ 189: 1-44, and 1983: _Paleobiology_ 9:
>218-239; Unwin, 1987: _Nature_ 327: 13-14; Paul, 1987:
>_Nature_ 328: 481, and 1989: _Dinosaurs Past and
>Present_ v.2: 4-49) as they caution in places.
>  I hope this clarifies to you my position on the
>matter on lagosuchids and the proposed models for
>arboreality in pterosaurs.
>Jaime "James" A. Headden
>"Come the path that leads us to our fortune."
>Qilong---is temporarily out of service.
>Check back soon.
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com