[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Protoavis Material, Episode II
Larry Febo wrote:
Still,...one would think that if Protoavis were a random grouping of
several animal parts, there would be at least some redundant parts,...(like
extra arm bones, foot bones, different types of vertebrae). I believe
George O. already pointed this out....and a good point it is.
Statistically, the more animal types it is supposedly composed of, the more
redundancy of parts you would expect, ....(unless you are implying it was a
skillfully put together "Piltdown type" of hoax).
Non-redundancy of parts only holds up as evidence *against* the composite
nature of _Protoavis_ if every body part is known to be correctly identified
(the manus as a manus, pubis as a pubis, etc). Many people have disputed
Chatterjee's identifications of certain elements. Sereno, for example, has
said *in print* that he suspects the manus of _Protoavis_ to be a pes. If
he's right, then the pedal elements are duplicated, and come from more than
one animal. In the same vein, I have heard that there is some doubt
regarding the identity of the pelvic elements.
This isn't the final word, of course. This is just to let you know that
"redundancy of parts" is an unresolved issue when it comes to _Protoavis_ -
as has been pointed out many, many times on this list.
By the way, this is not intended as a slur on Sankar Chatterjee - so,
please, no references to Piltdown or hoaxes in any responses to this post.
Maybe there are genuine bird bits mixed among the _Protoavis_ material.
Hey, we have a Early Jurassic therizinosaur, why not a Late Triassic avian?
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp