[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: origin of bats/reply 2 to TMK
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Peters" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 2:56 PM
Just hazarding a guess based on pterosaurs and birds: 1) bipedal
configuration, fingers get smaller – or maybe not in the case of bats
which probably remained inverted and arboreal throughout (Sharovipteryx,
Coelophysis); 2) fingers get longer, folding mechanism added (unnamed
fenestrasaur, Velociraptor), 3) fingers (or fingers + feathers) get much
longer (eudimorphodontids, Archaeopteryx) and become volant, no longer
used for grasping, climbing, walking.
Though let me quibble with a few details: Archie doesn't have longer fingers
than *Velociraptor* and clearly still used them for grasping (judging from
phalanx proportions, claw size, claw shape).
<If you look at Ptilocercus and Nandinia, both are quadrupedal climbers,
but both hold their prey with their hands. Both enjoy inverted
locomotion. Nandinia likes to jump out of trees. Ptilocercus has a
fairly naked tail. Not much, but it’s a start.>
It is my humble opinion that you're reading too much into this
argument. There are 1) convergences in anatomy, and 2) convergences in
Of course, Drs. Martin and Feduccia, but added to the suite of
morphological characters, these add evidence to the case.
Well, by only mentioning those five characters and not the rest of the
suite, you basically asked for it. :-| Once more, it's simply not possible
to discuss your results before they are published.
Jaime, I'm just giving you the cherries on top. There's so much more
in the dataset.
We will gladly wait for the whole dataset. Talking about a few cherries
makes no sense.