[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Flight of _Sharovipteryx
David Peters wrote:
> Point 1: DNandR never actually _found_ forelimb membranes
> or forelimbs(!) in Sharovipteryx. Their paper was entirely
> hypothetical.
A few quick responses to Point 1:
A) Dyke &c found forelimbs in _Sharovipteryx_ ("recent preparation has
confirmed the presence of small forelimbs").
B) Although forelimb membranes were not found in the _Sharovipteryx_ holotype,
this portion of this specimen is said to be damaged by preparation. In any
case, such membranes, although beneficial, are not essential for the
delta-winged model.
C) Of course their paper was "hypothetical". They didn't have living
_Sharovipteryx_ to observe directly. As a paleoecological study, your work is
hypothetical too.
> Point 2: The keyword "If" and "under this
> scenario" are not supported by evidence. If you
> disagree, simply provide evidence. I'd love to see it.
Of course there is evidence: _Sharovipteryx_ has patagia. I use "if" and
"under this scenario" because any and all reconstructions of _Sharovipteryx_'s
behavior are hypothetical (see above).
> Point 3: Pterosaurs also have uropatagia, they walk and run
> as evidenced by tracks, and their tibia are typically longer
> than their femora, but that is a pleisomorphic character
> going back to preflapping taxa, like sister taxon,
> Sharovipteryx.
I'll limit my response to noting that this particular statement of yours is a
blend of fact and opinion.
Cheers
Tim