[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Flight of _Sharovipteryx
David Peters wrote:
> Point 1: DNandR never actually _found_ forelimb membranes
> or forelimbs(!) in Sharovipteryx. Their paper was entirely
A few quick responses to Point 1:
A) Dyke &c found forelimbs in _Sharovipteryx_ ("recent preparation has
confirmed the presence of small forelimbs").
B) Although forelimb membranes were not found in the _Sharovipteryx_ holotype,
this portion of this specimen is said to be damaged by preparation. In any
case, such membranes, although beneficial, are not essential for the
C) Of course their paper was "hypothetical". They didn't have living
_Sharovipteryx_ to observe directly. As a paleoecological study, your work is
> Point 2: The keyword "If" and "under this
> scenario" are not supported by evidence. If you
> disagree, simply provide evidence. I'd love to see it.
Of course there is evidence: _Sharovipteryx_ has patagia. I use "if" and
"under this scenario" because any and all reconstructions of _Sharovipteryx_'s
behavior are hypothetical (see above).
> Point 3: Pterosaurs also have uropatagia, they walk and run
> as evidenced by tracks, and their tibia are typically longer
> than their femora, but that is a pleisomorphic character
> going back to preflapping taxa, like sister taxon,
I'll limit my response to noting that this particular statement of yours is a
blend of fact and opinion.