[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: AW: FW: Paravian claw studies
----- Original Message -----
From: "GSP1954@aol.com" <GSP1954@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/30/12 4:36:57 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< First, it must be demonstrated that the curvature of the sheath follows
the curvature of the ungual closely enough to make measurements of the
latter in absence of the former actually worthwhile. >>
>This is correct. It is not possible to accurately determine the curvature
of the actual keratin claw from the bone core despite what some past
studies have claimed.
This needs a citation. Burnham et al say the same thing, but they only study
fossils, from China... who knows how much of the claw impressions are real. I
think this point is baseless. Why not measure extant birds, or anything and
everything with an ungual?
We (Fowler et al., 2009) measured a set of unguals with removable sheaths from
a golden eagle (only one specimen admittedly). The sheaths are proportional to
the unguals (ie. contra how Burnham et al. [mis]cite us). Manning et al (2009 I
think, could be 2006) suggest the sheaths add about 15% (I think it was 15) to
the ungual. Maybe he is wrong, but the figure looks about right to me (looking
at extant specimens, including a few more in our osteology collection).
Looking only at fossils, especially chinese dinobird fossils, isn't enough to
say anything. Is the suggestion that somehow basal paravians had ungual-sheath
proportions that differ from modern birds?
I imagine Chris Glen's data may answer some of these issues, or I might just do