[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Patagium attachment Was: Re: Pterosaur.net
On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:57 PM, David Peters wrote:
Bottom line: the united uroapatagia of basal pterosaurs remains, in
view, the best supported idea because of reasons discussed at
the pterosaur literature.
I hate "reasons." And so should you. Evidence should always trump
"reasons." There was good "reason" to put the pteroid in the cup of
the preaxial carpal. Just no evidence.
Come on now, I think we all know that when Mark said "reasons" in that
context, he meant the evidence supplied in the literature. I
certainly understood the connotation, and I think everyone else did,
too - there's no reason to play the semantics game.
Mark, just send me one single bloody example of an unsplit
uropatagium or a deep chord wing membrane and I'll join your
movement. Surely you have one of each tucked away somewhere.
I am confused by your term "movement". I presume you mean the
observation that pterosaur membranes seem to have been variable in
their extent, chord, and and attachment, based on the current fossil
evidence, as opposed to being universally broad or universally
narrow? I think that would be the current best supported model, not a
Assistant Professor of Biology
Woodland Road, Pittsburgh PA 15232
Buhl Hall, Room 226A