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

Re: If No. 9 is a hatchling



Okay. Let's play.

What are the 'obviously juvenile characters' of the little tiger?

I can start with first set of teeth about to be replaced with second set.

And small. 
But we don't know that, because we have no other bigger ones to compare to.
 
Nick, not knowing tigers as well as I wish I did at this very moment, I want 
you to give me the next five obvious juvenile characters we can work with, not 
shared by the adult house cats, and we'll figure this out together.

David Peters







-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>
Sent: Sep 29, 2004 10:45 AM
To: david peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: If No. 9 is a hatchling

Quoting david peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>:

> 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.

OK.  Imagine you're an alien paleontologist, excavating the former site of Las
Vegas, millions of years from now.  You have already dug up a bunch of house
cats; then you start excavating Siegfried and Roy's house.  You find a baby
tiger but, for whatever reason, no adults.  The tiger cub is clearly related to
the house cats, and shows lots of obviously juvenile characters, but is too big
to be a juvenile house cat.

Please tell us why we should assume that the tiger cub is a neotenic adult
rather than a juvenile of a species related to but larger than a house cat.

Nick Pharris
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan