[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 
> hypothetical. 

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 
delta-winged model. 

C) Of course their paper was "hypothetical".  They didn't have living 
_Sharovipteryx_ to observe directly.  As a paleoecological study, your work is 
hypothetical too.

> 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,
> Sharovipteryx.

I'll limit my response to noting that this particular statement of yours is a 
blend of fact and opinion.