[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Oryctos Is Back
----- Original Message -----
From: "evelyn sobielski" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:45 AM
I would not bet on half of the traits. Maybe they're good, but I would not
bet on them. For now.
3rd finger and carpometacarpus seem too good to be wrong. The rest...
I would not bet on any single trait. Nor did Hennig. That's why cladistics
Total-evidence approach. Throw it all together and see which signal is
Contradictory evidence (keywords: Saururae,
Bah! as if we had the means to even remotely understand it when these
theories were born.
That's not what I'm talking about -- I'm talking about how the BANDits still
cling to it, long after it has been refuted.
Like with _Longisquama_ (why oh why _Longisquama_?)
Because BANDits don't read the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology,
including the paper by Senter (2005) that showed it's not even a crown-group
The differences between enantis and euornis [thx] are peculiar - them
having evolved from closely related *non-volant* (maybe fluttering)
mid-late Jurassic ancestors would make sense of that.
Not if you compare *Jibeinia*, confuciusornithids and *Sapeornis*.
Take the scapulacoracoid: with the right genes present, it just needs to
happen - and bone fusions are not that uncommon, only they're ofter
prenatally lethal. Not this time apparently. So with the right genetic
framework and the right kind of anatomy and lifestyle, and feathers of
course, you're rather liable to get a scapulacoracoid sooner or later.
What do you mean? Fusion in adults is the plesiomorphic condition here, and
a joint the derived one. (Also found in *Rahonavis* and some or all of the
Chinese long-tailed "birds", I forgot which ones. Not found in *Sapeornis*