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

Re: Albisaurus... and Shuvuuia... and Cryptovolans (but mostly Cryptovolans)



Aspidel wrote:

> Agreed, and especially the skull. It's qualified "dromaeosaurid-like",
> without any description and measuring. It also lacks a skeletal
> reconstruction.
>
Agreed, although I do not have the original pub. from Czerkas and I only
have to work with the information that is available on the web through the
DML and other sources. From personal correspondence with HP Aspidel I have
learned about this sad fact and at the moment, a skeletal reconstruction for
both Cryptovolans and Microraptor (yep, it still is, unfortunately) are in
the works so that comparisons are more easier to make in the near future.
But from the prelinary long bone ratio's, it appears the two have had
similair ratio's based on educated and artistic guesses and both had a
relatively short trunk and long tail compared to their hindlimbs.
Unfortunately, no well preserved feather imprints are preserved with the two
newly referred Microraptor specimens, so that comparisons based on wing
lenght/ breadth are not possible. It is highly possible though that
Microraptor had big wings, but that's about it's lifestyle and that's not
the subject of this subject. In manual morphology they appear to show
another shared characteristic, which is that the thumb (excluding the claw)
is as long as the second metacarpal, which IIRC was a supposed diagnostic
character in the Microraptor in the AMNH publication. It's on my old
computer upstairs and it's pretty late (my parents are asleep), or else I
could have looked it up.
>
> Or simply that _Cryptovolans_ may be close to _Microraptor_ or another
basal
> dromie... (W4MMA?) ... always the same problem "What's a genus?" and
"What's
> a species?" in paleontology --- there're posts enough in the archives
about
> this question.
>
But none was able to give the definite answer, it's all a matter of opinion
of how much of an animal has to differ from a genus that is already known to
be a new genus or species. And I thought it was W4MA (wait for Mickey's
analysis) ;)
>
> > I received a few old messages too.  Dunno what's going on.
>
> So did I.
>
And I. Just to let everyone know before this subject in this thread is
called quits by the DML-hosts OSLT (or something like that)
>
Cheers,

Rutger Jansma