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

**Cryptoraptor pui**



The recent, and fourth, installation of Luis Rey?s
?The New Chinese Revolution? has rekindled my interest
in the M. gui/pauli specimens.  I still find these
creatures being classified as separate species and
even genus.  I have backtracked through the old
conversation on the subject from the Archives of the
Dinosaur Mailing List, and I have searched numerous
sites.  I find that most believe the two creatures to
be the same species of Microraptor.  Only one argument
has lasted, and I can find little, if any, evidence to
support it (but I?ll get to this later).  I have
noticed the fact that some see the correct naming and
classification of this creature to be of a trivial
nature; however, I find it of great importance.  First
of all, those that made the discoveries deserve the
honor and privilege to have the creature referred to
by their name of choice and not one that came
afterward or in an unaccepted way. As it is in this
case the proper naming would give credit to both Xu et
al. for the genus (Microraptor) and Czerkas et al. for
the species (pauli); that is if the Czerkas papers are
accepted as valid in the Naming; if not then let it
stand as M. gui.  Secondly, A decision on what the
name should be would give a definite name to use when
referring to the specimens.  The later would clear up
a great amount of confusion that I have come across on
a number of sites and emails.  
I too have put in a lot of time and energy into the
study of these creatures.  I believe whole-heartedly
that they are indeed the same species, and therefore
should be called M. pauli.  This position is supported
greatly my own findings and by the findings of many
others.  The Cryptovolans pauli type specimen does
indeed show the same fully formed wings (with the
longest primary being no less than twice the length of
the femur), large tarsal fathers, distal remices,
characteristic phalangeal proportions, fused sternum,
bowed tibia, and I even believe the tuberocity of the
radius as that of M. gui type specimen.  Furthermore,
the proportions, feather arrangements, and size are
nearly the same in every way as well.  The second
specimen of C. pauli, although a juvenile, helps to
confirm all of the above traits to be that same
(except for the un-preserved tail/remices). The only
persistent argument I have found against this idea is
that some have said the metacarpal I + phalanx
I-1/metacarpal II ratio is different between the two
creatures.  This is not a major difference. Even if
true, normal individual variation could easily explain
it away; however, I cannot find this to be true for
the C. pauli type specimen.  It seems to be possible
for the juvenile specimen, but this can easily be seen
as a probable juvenile state (the same is true for the
Archaeopteryx juvenile and adults).  The type specimen
does not show this discrepancy.  It proportions seem
to be the same as M. gui?s 0.80-0.84%.  I have studied
this for some time and have repeatedly come to the
same conclusion.  Both the right and left manus, even
though damaged, clearly show this same feature.
Therefore, I cannot see the validity of this argument.
If anyone wants the data I used to come to my
conclusion on the manual proportions please email me. 
I will gladly send them via Microsoft Word attachment
or any other way needed.  Just supply the address to
send them to.  Furthermore, if any one has any
comments I welcome them and will appreciate them
greatly.

      Thank you for your time:
      Daniel Selvidge
      dansel72020@yahoo.com


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree