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

Re: four-winged dino -- ptero homology?



Ray Stanford wrote:

>>
 Dave might do well to speak with more caution.  It is widely known that

persons in desperation or anger tend to stretch and distort the meanings
and
intentions of others' statements to fit their straw-man cases.
>>

No desperation. No emotion. Let's take it down, Ray. (see below).

>>
    From what distorted window is Dave viewing my statements?  Did I say

anything about disregarding evidence that pterosaurs could fly, contrary
to
the fossil evidence of wings?!!!  LMAO!
>>

I agree with you, Ray, that the fossil evidence of wings is cause enough
to believe in pterosaur flight. In like manner the literature also
suggests that an elongated anterior ilium, a short stiff torso, a sacrum
with more than two sacrals and other markers are bipedal indicators in
diapsids with a lizard-like ancestry. I didn't make this stuff up.
Snyder came up with it fifty years ago.

>>
    But 'an-ounce-of-morphology-gives-us-tons-of-locomotory-insight'
advocates like Dave made fools of themselves as evidenced in years of
claiming that pterosaurs did NOT walk quadrapedally!  The trackways have

proven them wrong.
>>

Ah-ha!  I think you have me confused with Kevin Padian. My papers and
abstracts all propose quadrupedal and bipedal behaviour in the
Chlamydosaurus (frillneck lizard) model. It's okay.

>>
    Considering that their extrapolations to the Nth degree from
perceived
morphological 'evidences' misled them all those years into taking a
stand
against quadrapedal pterosaurian locomotion, it is not unreasonable to
suspect that similar misinterpretations of the significance of perceived

'morphology' might be misleading them again.

    Dave's track record of predicting pterosaur locomotion is not very
credible.
>>

Can you be specific? (see above) As far as I know, it's not been
predictive, but reportive, and always quad + bip, not against quad.

>>
    Furthermore, I have never asserted that no species of pterosaur
could
ever have progressed bipedally on occasion.  I hope no one reads 'words'

into my statements that were never intended.  To the contrary, in fact,
I
should, indeed, be surprised if bipedal progression of a pterosaur
never,
ever happened.
>>

Sorry, Ray. Considering your strong statement against bipedalism due to
lack of track evidence, I took you literally. Perhaps we share more
common matrix than you realize. Thank you for bending a little at the
end. I think we're good now. And I am not, nor never have been, Kevin
Padian.  :  )

Quadrupedally, on my hands and knees begging to be friends again,

David Peters
St. Louis