Re: Rahonavis....Both!

["Larry Febo" <larryf@capital.net>]

>> Is there enough evidence besides the claw for a positive link to this
>> group?  And,...if I`m correct in suspecting there is, then how can we
>> continue comparing Droms with Archie, when there`s a closer
>> representative to be had in Rahonavis??

>M. Keesey:
>Not sure what you mean... for one thing, _Archaeopteryx_ remains are a lot
>better than _Rahonavis_ remains (better than the majority of small
>Mesozoic terrestrial animal remains, in fact).

Guess what I`m really trying to do is point out an inconsistancy. I mean, if
Rahonavis is descended from Dromaeosaurs (according to BAMM), then how could
Archaeopteryx also be. (although I think I just got the answer by reading a
Jeff Poling article claiming it to be a possible "holdover" from the
Jurassic).
Also, it seems, that Rahonavois would then have to be an INTERMEDIATE
between Archie and Dromaeosaurs, given its large pedal claw and bony rods in
the tail etc. (here, I`m assuming it is closer to Dromies than Archie
morphologically).
Personally, (despite the "holdover" explaination), I think the relationship
of these forms is better indicated by BCF, given the stratigraphic evidence
of where (when) these fossils occur.