Re: Archaeopteryx Chimaera (was: Function Talks at Ostrom Symposium)

["Augustus T. White" <augwhite@neosoft.com>]

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
> 
> Ruben et al. do not consider Archie to have a "dinosaur pelvis": indeed,
> they restore it with a hyperopisthopuby not justified by any of the
> specimens.  Furthermore, they consider any similarities between the pelves
> of dromaeosaurids and Archie to be superficial (although they consider the
> pelves of theropods and crocodilians "strikingly similar"...).
> 
> With their new model of the Archaeopteryx pelvis, they suggest a
> pelvic-driven pump in Archaeopteryx, as a forerunner to the modern bird
> condition.  They do not think that Archie had a hepatic pistion.  (Hey, I
> agree with them on this, at least).

One facet of the argument, as I remember it (from the 1997 Ruben paper), is 
about the 
angle of the pubis.  Is this correct and, if so, how easy is it to determine 
the angle 
in life from a mostly 2D fosil?  

  --Toby White