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

Re: Sharovipteryx



Perhaps,although the matter of degree of flexability in the foot is still
debated. (Last I heard , both Padian and Dave Peters believe enough
flexability existed for a bipedal posture in Dimorphodon). Even so,...there
are even earlier candidates Eudimorphodon, Peteinosaurus, Preondactylus. I
don`t doubt that some of the larger later pterosaurs may have been
secondarily plantigrade, but believe Padians arguement for bipedality in the
earlier forms (at least). After reading his paper "A Functional Analysis of
Flying and Walking in Pterosaurs" I agree with him that "...the hindlimb was
designed, like those of bipedal dinosaurs and birds,for bipedal,
parasagittal locomotion."

-----Original Message-----
From: NJPharris@aol.com <NJPharris@aol.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Sharovipteryx


>In a message dated 5/24/2000 4:26:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>larryf@capital.net writes:
>
>>  And,...if they are at all related, dosen`t this
>>  suggest that early pterosaurs (at least) may have also been bipeds???
>
>They would have to have been rather odd and unbirdlike bipeds, since a
>(relatively) new specimen of _Dimorphodon_ demonstrated that its toes could
>not hyperextend, making the animal an obligate plantigrade.
>
>Nick P.
>