[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Archaeopteryx skull redescribed and reconstructed
David Marjanovic <email@example.com> wrote:
> ...which, in turn, would be majorly bizarre anyway. This is _not_ how extant
> birds achieve
> their prokinesis.
No doubts on that score. Most versions of a prokinetic
_Archaeopteryx_ identified a putative "bending zone" within the nasal
or at the naso-frontal contact, rather than a sliding joint. (Although
to be fair, some workers at the time regarded the skull of
_Archaeopteryx_ as being akinetic, such as Whetstone, 1983). In the
same vein, it was once argued that _Confuciusornis_ had a
"naso-frontal hinge" (e.g., Hou et al., 1995).
> Some attempts looked really desperate, along the lines of "but it's not a
> mammal or a
> turtle or a crocodile, it just _has_ to bend somewhere". I think this comes
> from treating
> some squamate archetype as the default "reptile": default reptiles have skull
> birds have skull kinesis, so logically Archie must have had skull kinesis,
Yes, and in some cases (but by no means all) the interpretation of
kinesis was colored by the "fact" that _Archaeopteryx_ was a bird, and
so "must" have been capable of some form of bird-like intracranial
kinesis (usually prokinesis).