Protoavis

[brush <BRUSH@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>]

It seems that Protoavis has resurfaced on this list. I would like to quote from
 an article in the journal Archaeopteryx (14:39-42, 1996) by John Ostrom. In
 dealing with Chatterjees claims, and especially in comparison to the know
material on Archaeopteryx, Ostrom points out that

   1. Protoavis is thought to include the remains of 2 or 3 individuals,
     from 2 separate sites. There is even a question as to whether they
     are the smae kind of animal.
  2. Protoavis is claimed to be collected from an "approximately-dated
     non-marine formation". However, no mold or photographic record of the
     original material was made, so spacial relationships and actual
     associations no longer exist. This is important because the associated
     material is often used in dating.
  3. The skull of protoavin in Chatterjee's articles is "imagined by him from
     fragments (not shown). While he compares then to Archaeopteryx, they are
     hardly compariable.

  Further, Chiappee,(1995) said "Except for a few elements, the available
  material from Protoavis is extremely fragmentary. Chatterjee's
  interpretations of certain bones (such as furcula, sternum) are questionable,
and even the association of elements into specimens and then into a single
taxon seems difficult to support. Despite details reconstructions of the
skull, only portions of the braincase, quadrate and orbital roof are
resaonably preserved.. I concur with others that until better sepcimens are
recovered and support for association of these into a single taxon are
provided, Protoavis should not be considered relevant to avian evolution".

                 Cheers,
                         Alan