[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: coelurosauravus revisited
1. In my reconstruction (see www.pterosaurinfo.com/coelurosauravus.html)
the wing is broader than FS&M reconstructed it, with a leading edge
extending at right angles to the sagittal plane. This reconstruction was
created by rotating each rib in Photoshop, rather than redrawing it
freehand as FS&M seem to have done.
Looks good... though I wouldn't be surprised if diagenetic distortion were
shown to have occurred. The extra curvature of the rods that is not present
in the FS&M reconstruction could be just that.
4. There are 23 rods in total per side. The first 11 emanate from the
first dorsal rib and form a large bundle proximally, as HS&M noted.
However, the posterior 12 rods appear to be associated with the next 12
dorsal ribs, one-to-one. Thus half are not radially oriented as HS&M
reported in 1997. About half are though.
Could well be.
5. SMNK 2882 PAL might be a mother. When all of the bones af the main
specimen are accounted for, more remain. In both specimens the skull is
the only disarticulared element. I'd be interested to see if others can
reidentify the bones, especially that unique skull, any other way.
The "skull" is probably the pelvis of the adult, with the adult "pelvis"
that you find being a face on Mars (parts of the feature exist, but the
connections between the parts probably don't). It looks like an
ornithischian's! Half of the rest are ribs from the right side of the adult,
while the other half is only visible in the mouseover.
6. The affinities of Coelurosauravus are still an open question. The
metacarpals and metatarsals decrease in length laterally from II to V.
When we find another taxon with this pattern, we might have a clue.
Why can't that be an autapomorphy?
7. The hands and feet, to no one's suprise, appear to be webbed.
You mean "to everyone's surprise". What for would an arboreal animal need
webbings that I at least can't see in the bad photo?