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

Re: Revising Hou et al, 96 (woo-o-o-o-o-o-o doggy!)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:54 AM

> Now, answer the question this whole exchange was about in the first place-
> What pedal characters does Microraptor have (and Rahonavis lack) that
would
> support putting Microraptor in the Deinonychosauria?

May I offer an alternative question -- what characters do *Microraptor*,
*Archaeopteryx* and *Rahonavis* have (and Pygostylia lack) that would
support putting them all in Deinonychosauria? :-)

> > <B. Rahonavis has a more strongly developed sickle claw than
Microraptor,
> > so sickle claw characters are very poor evidence for deinonychosaurian
> > affinities in the latter taxon or Sinornithosaurus.>

If *Rahonavis* is indeed closer to Pygostylia. IMHO that remains to be
demonstrated.

> >   Size-related characters are homoplasious, as is the very condition of
a
> > ziphodont tooth morphology. Would you leave or have these in your
matrix?

BTW, should it be ziphodont or xiphodont? Is it derived from xiphias =
sword, like e. g. the xiphisternal processes? (Never seen a serrated sword,
though.)