[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Effigia [was Defending Photoshop]
Jaime A. Headden wrote:
Once, long ago, Dave
Peters argued a preacetabular ala indicated a biped, so why is this taxon
any different? However, I did make a mistaken corellation before, by
indicating that the inturned femoral caput was typical of bipeds. It is,
but it's more indicative of erect femoral posture, which leads to cursorial
specialization of the hindlimb,
The "inturned (or offset) femoral caput" is also different between the
crocodylomorph and dinosaurian lines: articulating anteriorly in the former,
and medially in the latter.
David Peters wrote:
The key thought here is that Ticinosuchus led to at least two branches now,
the bipeds and the armored ones, much as early dinosaurs led to theropods
scuttellosaurs. So, it can happen. Try not to apply too many aeotosaur
characters to something that is not an aetosaur. Some characters, yes, but
the correct characters, before and after the split.
I think there's some funny business going on here. It may be that the
problem is just a poor choice of words in the above paragraph; but the way I
read it, you appear to be cherry-picking characters.