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

Re: Nice example of narrow chord pterosaur wing on the 'net



Well, to my eyes it looks like it went beneath the surface of the matrix originally and was prepped away. Or they didn't go deep enough (less likely). Here one simply takes the >trajectory< of what data you do have and continue it in the same curve, which runs right about at the edge of the prepping (sad) until the prepping ends and -- voilÃ!

What is your support that this us an accuate technique for reconstruction? There are many reasons why this could be misleading.

--there is a line of something leading to a point 2/3 down the femur, exactly as shown in the Vienna specimen

Actually, if you continue the curve using a spline, instead if drawing a straight tangent line, then you get an attachment somewhere in the tibia. But I don't think you can make either argument. The membrane isn't there, so making wild suppositions is no good here.

2. to MH: Okay, well, Pittsburgh SVP is coming. Let's put this specimen on our list. And let's check out that anterior thigh together.

I'm in Pittsburgh already. Happy to show you the critter. It is nice but does not demonstrate wing extent.


Summary: I add this to my list of narrow-chord wing membrane examples (some good, some not so good). And I remain eager to see a single example from the opposing camp.

The opposing camp has given several examples. You have dismissed them for various reasons, and while some of your arguments bear merit, others can say much the same about your narrow wing examples, leaving us eagerly awaiting a clear example of either one. Personally, I find several of the hindlimb attachment examples robust, but even then, we do not have attachments for the vast majority of clades, and attachment could easily vary. Fortunately, we have lots of good outboard wings, so we can reconstruct that much with relative confidence. It turns out that the specifics of the inboard wing don't make much of a difference when you work out the numbers, because a fillet is not very aerodynamically active.

Cheers,

--Mike H.