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

RE: Nemicolopterus phylogeny



David Peters wrote:

> "Super claws" would have had a tough time getting
> around anywhere but in the trees.

Well, I'm guessing it got around fine in the air.

          [Coupe.]

PAL 3830 ("super claws") is
the azhdarchoid that shows clear evidence of the cheiropatagium being attached
to the ankle.


[Clear evidence? Time to pony up. I'm eager to see what you have.]

I guess your argument is that because the hindlimbs are bound up
in the flight surface, the animal was ungainly on land, and so was limited to
the trees. I don't agree with this at all.


[This is really cool. You imagine my response then you argue against it. Why am I even responding to this? I sense a rant.]

I'd be more convinced of arboreality in PAL 3830 if it showed pedal characters associated with
suspensory or prehensile behavior, rather than simply having a 'broad- chord' wing.


[Tim, just for the record, the arboreality of SMNK PAL 3830 is in the "super claws" which curve an unbelievable semi-circle, tripling the length of each ungual. Plus, the penultimate phalanges are the longest in each digit series. These are the clues that suggest arboreality. Then again, I wasn't there.]


> And Yes, that's yet another tiny pterosaur at the base of a major clade.
> Funny how often that happens. Zap! There goes arrow in the torso of Cope's
> Rule...



As Mike said, this is actually consistent with Cope's rule. I think that arrow
of yours struck your own foot. Funny how that happens. ;-)


[Ancestors much bigger than descendants in this case. Did I misread Cope's rule? Is there an asterisk I missed?]


> Yes (to another question) anurognathids are very close to the base of the
> Pteosauria. And like Chris Bennett wrote in 1997 following earlier work by
> von Huene (I think), pterosaurs are indeed derived from Triassic arboreal
> leapers.



It's a plausible idea, but we need proto-pterosaur fossils to verify this
hypothesis.


[You don't like Sharovipteryx? Which genus is your closest candidate? Unwin (2006), the latest word on the subject, said it was an unspecified diapsid. Can you get _any_ closer?]

Cheers

Tim