phorusrhacids

[Nick Longrich <longrich@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

        Be very, very skeptical of the Discover article. I've read the
paper and all they have is 
a) a nice carpometacarpus
b) half a humerus with the proximal end broken off.
        There is no distal humerus, ulna, radius, carpals, phalanges, or
claws. There is nothing wrong with speculation and I indulge in a lot of
it but I think Discover was wrong to sell this as a cover story, and I
feel that the article was misleading. It's not impossible. But its hardly
the only explanation or the most parsimonious explanation and it seems
like it oversteps the bounds of our ability to extrapolate function from
form. Look at how we argue over something where we do have most of the
skeleton, like a T. rex! 
        I can't help but feel miffed at Discover, partly because I really
bought into it until someone tossed a copy of the actual paper on my desk.
I guess you just have to keep your guard up the other 11 months of the
year besides April... 
        I mean, it's not impossible, weirder things happen all the time,
maybe it's right and we just need to find those missing giant
sickle-shaped claws. But I feel like they presented this as a settled
issue just because it made for a better story, and even if the hypothesis
*is* right, I feel that the kind of journalism used wasn't.

        nick L.