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

Re: Dinosaur Genera List update #196



Mickey wrote-
Probably because-
1. It was not described in Science or Nature.

Which seem to be the prime target for popular press to gather information from. Why?


2. It was described so very poorly, with virtually no useful described
morphology or line drawings.

But the pictures are so beautiful, they make me want to drool for hours. ;)


Even though it seems to be a dromaeosaur, this is only based on
the elongate distal caudal prezygopophyses and chevrons. The fused sternal plates are an avian character that could put
it at the base of the Avialae. If this were
true, it would not be good evidence of secondary flightlessness.

Besides, isn't _C. pauli_ considered volant? Doesn't it have deinonychosaur-like pedal morphology though? I've not looked at it in detail.



Nick




_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf