[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
David Peters wrote:
> Exactly my point. Thank you. And--> fact check: Draco
> volans (arboreal, short limbs) vs. nearly every bipedal
> running lizard (terrestrial) in the Jayne videos. Check the
_Draco_ is an extant patagial glider in which the patagium is supported by
elongated dorsal ribs. The fossil _Sharovipteryx_ is interpreted as a patagial
glider in which the hindlimbs and tail supported an extensive patagial
membrane. The patagium of _Draco_ is not supported by the hindlimbs, so a
comparison of limb proportions between _Draco_ and _Sharovipteryx_ isn't useful
in this respect.
> I note the weasel word, "may," in your text. So,
> bottom line: you don't know.
This is a little unfair, David. Of course Jaime doesn't *know*. He's being
careful not to phrase his own interpretations and opinions as facts.
> Wouldn't it be nice to actually demonstrate one way or
> the other through evidence and phylogenetic analysis?
Yes, it would. But the best we can do is erect hypotheses and refute or
corroborate these hypotheses with available evidence. I'm not saying your
hypothesis of a terrestrial/bipedal cursorial _Sharovipteryx_ is wrong.
However, no amount of emphatic assertions on your part has yet overturned the
alternative hypothesis that _Sharovipteryx_ was an arboreal glider in which the
hindlimbs were elongated in order to increase the patagial span.
BTW, even if a phylogenetic analysis recovers _Sharovipteryx_ as the sister
taxon to Pterosauria, it does not *prove* that _Sharovipteryx_ was a
terrestrial biped. Ichnological data indicate that pterosaurs were quadrupeds
when on the ground. Although you yourself might interpret the pterosaurs as
bipeds (based on anatomy), this is just circular reasoning if you use this to
support bipedality in _Sharovipteryx_.