[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Tim Williams (TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu) wrote:
<This is the Solnhofen (sixth) specimen of _Archaeopteryx_. Many folks
believe it to be a large specimen of _Archaeopteryx_. I wouldn't get too
comfortable with the name _Wellnhoferia_.>
This may be a matter of personal taste. Elzanowski certainly accounted
for plentiful differences, especially regarding the foot. Personally, this
may be remarkable to a unique individual, but it is possible this is of
greater systematic import. Involving the lines of where one draws the line
between unique individuals, or clades of genetic isolation. I am
personally aware that the bulk of specimens are considered *A.
lithographica* by the majority of workers who consider the taxon. However,
even a select few may be right, and reviewing proportionate details and
some very select morphological details of the osteology have supported new
species or new genera of a select group, Archaeopterygidae, etc. What
makes *Archaeopteryx* more real than Archaeopterygidae, for instance? :)
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.