[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Pinnatus Aenigmaticus
> At the time and further
> until 1985, this sure could be comfortably assigned to
> A. lithographica, but in fact, if there are two (or
> even three) species represented in the material, how
> does one then decide which species this feather
> referes to? I would think, and suggest, that this
> feather should be best assigned as "archaeopterygid
> feather" should the Eichtatt specimen prove to be a
> unique genus, or as *Archaeopteryx sp.* should it be a
> unique species along with the Solenhofer Aktien-Verein specimen.
Eichstätt, Solnhofen, Solnhofener Aktienverein...
Why bother about that now? Let's wait for the description of the 8th
specimen (which isn't even prepared now, and time and date of discovery are
unknown, as is the discoverer...). Besides, have you ever looked at the odd
shape of the sternum of A. bavarica? I'd say this is only _one_ sternum (the
left or right one) and ought to be turned around by 90°. This would explain
why there is so much space between it and the first pair of gastralia in the
usual reconstructions, and it would probably make the separate species name
A. bavarica unnecessary: A. bavarica was named because it is smaller than
the biggest specimen of A. lithographica, but exhibited an ossified sternum
as a sign of maturity. An unfused sternum is usually a sign of immaturity...