[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 my view, the best supported idea because of reasons discussed at length in
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 "movement".

Cheers,

--Mike H.


Michael Habib
Assistant Professor of Biology
Chatham University
Woodland Road, Pittsburgh PA  15232
Buhl Hall, Room 226A
mhabib@chatham.edu
(443) 280-0181