[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Forthcoming theropod paper of note on the manus
From: "Nick Gardner"
> >From: "Stephan Pickering"
> > > But, unless I am
> > > misreading the literature, it is presumed theropod
> > > hands consist of I, II, III. The recent embryological
> > > research may revise this, as avian embryos show five
> > > digits, with I and V lost. Could it be that theropod
> > > hands are not I-III, but II-IV?
> It seems unlikely if Eoraptor lunensis and the herrerasaurids are
> but I recall in the SVP abstracts from 2001 that they might not be.
What could they be if they aren't theropods? Basal dinosaurs, more basals
than any theropod? Protodinosaurs as _Marasuchus_?
Even in this case, one has to verify if, for example, phalanges I-II-III-IV
of manus digit III (or traditionally supposed to be III) are homologous in,
let's say, _Eoraptor_ and _Dromaeosaurus_, or not.
Cheers - Aspidel.