Re: BADD BCF

[Robert.J.Meyerson@uwrf.edu (Rob Meyerson)]

>This I don't follow at all. What I'd like to see is "patagia on the dromeys=
,"
>which would be good evidence for a flying stage in their ancestry (why else=
 a
>patagium on a cursorial animal with grasping forelimbs?).

Exactly.  This would be a strong point in your favor.

>"No patagium in
>dromeys" tells you nothing one way or the other: they may never have had it=
,
>or they may have lost it secondarily when their wings reverted to the sole
>grasping and seizing function.

Although difficult to prove one way or another, the second possibility seems=
 weaker.  If BCF is correct (I'm on the fence at this point as far as=
 whether I agree with BCF or not), then the wings would have reverted *back*=
 into a grasping arm.  The arm would still reasonably show wing-like=
 characteristics, so if there is no evidence of the dromey arm being used as=
 a wing, then BCF is no longer valid.

>Besides, known dromeys and Archy are already close cousins (different
>families, same suborder as far as I can see); they are both descended from =
an
>Archy-like common ancestor (which may or may not have had a patagium).

Which is the point in question.  Another clinching point, how far from the=
 bird/dino split (I know, I know, birds are dinosaurs;-) was Archy?  This=
 may also provide a clue to a patagial-wing.  If Archy is close to the=
 split, then the odds are pretty good that it did not.  If it is far from=
 the split, then the odds are even.

Rob

***
"Don't Panic!"