Re: Non-theropod furculae

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/12/99 8:26:19 AM EST, LOKICORP@compuserve.com writes:

<< Given that the lone, incomplete specimen of _Longisquama_ is an
 impression, lacking any actual bone, I would be 
 _very_ wary of interpreting any aspects of its true osteology, particularly
 where tiny nuances present in the real bone might 
 be lacking in the impression.  For example, I am currently studying a
 small, articulated pectoral girdle from the Chinle 
 which possesses articulated scapulocoracoids, clavicles, and sternal
 plates.  The clavicles form a broad U- (or parabola-) 
 shaped structure, and the suture between them is subtle but definitely
 present.  Were I to impress the element into a fine-
 grained mud, I doubt the suture would show up, and the impression would
 resemble a furcula. >>

I'm not the only person on the planet who thinks the boomerang-shaped bone in 
the L. type specimen is a furcula.