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

Re: Ah ha! That's where therizinosaurs came from



Dang, just realized I was sending these just to Jason B rather than the 
list as I suppose was intended. I despise how the system suckers one into doing 
that. 

In a message dated 8/14/11 9:51:53 PM, GSP1954@aol.com writes:

<< One reason I realized that dromaeosaurs were likely to be neoflightless 
was 
because when I examined the Eichstatt specimen in 81 was it was plain as 
day that the palate was theropodian not avian in grade, so that did in the 
argumment that it was a "bird" more derived than dromaeosaurs since Archy 
does 
not have a whole lot else indicating it is closer to modern avians than the 
sickle claws. I also learned on the same trip that dromaeosaurs had 
ossified 
uncinates and sternal ribs in addition to the big sternal plates and 
pterosaur like tail also absent in Archy, plus the folding arms. I figured 
I would 
just wait oh about 30 years for the winged dromaeosaur fossils to show up 
supporting the hypothesis. So it's a mixture of flight adaptations and 
phylogeny. 

GSPaul


In a message dated 8/14/11 9:21:10 PM, jaseb@amnh.org writes:

<< It was me that wrote that there is no unambiguous anatomical evidence 
that

ratites had flying ancestors. I wrote that the way we can infer that they

are secondarily flightless is in phylogenetic context - since so many

birds that were more primitive flew. Thus the only way to demonstrate

neoflightlessness in their case is phylogenetic, not anatomical, analysis.


Would you agree? >> >>

</HTML>