[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Betty C wrote...
> the LINE drawings in question (NOT the painting) show 2 views of Q
> (scavenging like a vulture on a large carcass and as an active
> predator)- to illustrate the conflicting theories of lifestyle. The
> line drawings don't illustrate such an exclusive marine existance as
> you take umbrage against.
I was thinking that we were talking about Sibbick's newer illustration
that shows two hang-glider-like azhdarchids skim-feeding over the sea.
I've only seen it published in pamphlets and booklets: we have a big
blown up version here at the department (together with our lifesize
_Arambourgiania_ wing). I should explain why it is that this painting
shows the azhdarchids as being marine: the reason is that the type
specimen of _Arambourgiania_ was recovered from rocks that were
apparently deposited well away from shore in a fully marine
environment. I've been told that the place of deposition was literally
100s of km from the palaeoshoreline. Was _Arambourgiania_ really a
marine feeder while _Quetzalcoatlus_ was freshwater? I suspect these
animals could feed from both environments, and I don't see why they
"You assume too much"
PALAEOBIOLOGY RESEARCH GROUP
School of Earth, Environmental & Physical Sciences
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Burnaby Road email: email@example.com
Portsmouth UK tel: 01703 446718