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

Re: If No. 9 is a hatchling --



> I wonder what size the mother would have to be if No. 9 was indeed a
hatchling?

Well, if the meanwhile conventional wisdom is right and *Pterodactylus* &
*Germanodactylus* had a wingspan of some 2.5 m when they were adult (like
*Pterodactylus longicollum*), then I don't see any problem.

> The trouble shows up when you try to find a suitable mother for this
taxon. Nothing that PAUP says is  closely related to it can possibly produce
the egg in which it had to be packaged in because the pelves are too small.
That means we either go up or down the line of descent looking for a
suitable cloacal opening.

Firstly, cladistics will likely err when there are both juveniles and adults
in a matrix. That's the famous example with chimps and humans; any amount of
paedo- and/or peramorphosis guarantees a wrong result.

Secondly... why do you think we should presuppose that this particular
species were already known from at least one adult specimen? This is
flabbergasting.

> Then you've got palate problems.

No. 9 has no visible palate. Not even in your tracing.

> Sternal complex shape changes.

You have found a pretty shapeless sternal complex in your tracing. I find
none on the photo, because of the break in the slab.

> Your challenge is to match a baby with a mother.

Nope. The fossil record is way patchy enough to spare us this challenge.

> Let Unwin and Bennett know about this if you think they'd be interested.

Aren't they both here?