[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Origin of Birds-arboreal biped
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, G & J Bloomfield wrote:
(various snips)
> The upper Triassic archosaur Scleromochlus taylori had been
> suggested as one such beast by Von Huene in 1914.* He apparently was
> exploring the possibility of it being a pterosaur ancestor, but it seems
> to me that it would "work better" as a bird/dinosaur type as is being
> discussed. I've rearranged the published skeleton(from Wellnhofer's
> pterosaur book) and attempted to restore it as an arboreal,
> "protofeathered," obligate biped, with its small forelimbs free to help
> it balance itself as it jumped and clambered about in branches. The
> recent findings of possible primitive feathers are seeming to make this
> more and more plausible. It would seem to fill the bill in many ways,
> and some form like this does seem to me to be the most likely candidate
> for a "proto-bird."
Actually it has long been accepted that pterosaurs had some sort of
epidermal insulation. I am wondering if this covering is similar to that
found on _Sinosauropteryx_. If this is the case, then would _Lagosuchus_
not be a good candidate for these "proto-feathers" as well (assuming of
course that it is the most recent ancestor of pterosaurs (and
_Scleromochlus_) and dinosaurs)? Greg Paul restored his _Lagosuchus_ with
proto-feathers (perhaps filoplume like structures) back in PDW, which I
thought was fitting.
> I realize that this particular animal was not
> well-preserved, but is there anything known for certain about it that
> would rule this out? It does seem to be a perfectly good, tiny archosaur
> in the right time slot.
_Scleromochlus_ is preserved only as an impression. Dr. James Clark has
told me that about all we have to argue with on this little creature are
limb proportions.
jc