[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus
Michael Mortimer wrote:
Plus, there are characters agreeing with my topology (e.g. coracoid bent at
level of tubercle in Patagonykus, but not Alvarezsaurus or Mononykus), and
Patagonykus lived earlier than Alvarezsaurus and is the largest
alvarezsaurid, so some data make more sense that way.
I was going to jump in and say "But what about _Rapator_!!??". This is
known from an alvarezsaurid-like phalanx, which is very large by
alvarezsaurid standards. But then I remembered it's a bad idea to
extrapolate body size from a single phalanx; _Rapator_ may have had
proportionately larger forelimbs compared to its relatives.
I am betting that the evolution of the alvarezsaurid forelimb was a
fascinating process. I wonder which came first: the specialized digging
morphology or reduction in forelimb size; or did they evolve in tandem?
Jaime A. Headden wrote:
Mike Keesey himself (http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Sep/msg00403.html) makes
the case for not using it on grounds that I've not used so far: it would
probably need to be anchored on *Enigmosaurus* in accordance to the
at any point in which the name is actually published and therefore usable.
I didn't know this. AFAIK, given that "Enigmosauria" has not been
officially named, then there is no published etymology... so the name could
simply mean "enigmatic lizards" and not be explicitly tied to the
poorly-known genus _Enigmosaurus_.
Looks like you're swearing. :-) The name has the same derivation as
_Alxasaurus_, and AFAIK has not been published (outside of a thesis).