[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>>Which photos are these, btw? I can't recall seeing a C. sanctus beak
Maybe I'm wrong here. I doubt I've seen any particularly rare photos.
All right, so while the bones themselves make a wedge-shaped beak, the
keratin sheath itself is...completely unknown for C. sanctus? For any
Well, the only referred C. dui specimen in the literature lacks a skull.
I wish I could find a better picture, but this is the specimen I've seen
cited as C. dui and it does seem to have that upturned beak.
> And C. dui is still considered
> distinct from C. sanctus, right?
Yes, for many reasons besides the beak.
Please excuse me for not checking this in the archives before I sent my
question (the email Mickey Mortimer refers to is actually an answer to
one of my own questions--yes I feel like an idiot).
But these problems remain:
If this upturned beak is real (as it apparently is)、what purpose might
it have served? My own guess is a cross-bill like specialization toward
some particular kind of nut, but I'd like to hear others' opinions.
Also, since apparently there are no known beak impressions for C.
sanctus, might they too have had such upturned beaks?