Re: Archie bones

[ornstn@inforamp.net (Ronald Orenstein)]

GO writes:

>Well, there's one neat idea shot down in flames, eh? So was Larry Martin
>incorrect about there being no hollow bones in _Archaeopteryx_? And if this
>were the case, namely, that _Archaeopteryx_ bones were solid, it would have
>to be a reversal, since many theropod bones were hollow, even pneumatic.
>So--why the reversal, if indeed it happened?
>

Tom Holtz posted a message here a few months back stating that there was no
evidence that Archaepoteryx bones were not hollow, and that the parsimonious
assumption would be that they were.  It would not surprise me that if the
evidence were unclear Larry Martin would come down on the side of solid
bones - as with his endorsement of Protoavis I sometimes wonder, with
respect, if statements like this reflect his birds-are-not-dinos convictions
more than they do his critical eye.
--
Ronald I. Orenstein                           Phone: (905) 820-7886 (home)
International Wildlife Coalition              Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116 (home)
Home: 1825 Shady Creek Court                  Messages: (416) 368-4661
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2          Internet: ornstn@inforamp.net
Office: 130 Adelaide Street W., Suite 1940    
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3P5