[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Patagium attachment Was: Re: Pterosaur.net



> > 
> > 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.

No semantics game involved. Seriously. And if "evidence supplied in the 
literature" is going to be used as a "reason" some of that has been falsified 
in the literature, yet it still resurfaces. Please don't send me back to the 
literature. I've been there. Send me evidence. Obviously you've thought long 
and hard about this. 

> 
> > 
> >>  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".

A movement, a group, a clade of like-minded thinkers. 

Just trace one deep wing membrane or one uropatagium and show me why you are 
correct. If you can't, just admit that you can't.

David