Re: Rahonavis....Both!

["John V Jackson" <jjackson@interalpha.co.uk>]

--Original Message-- From: Larry To: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
<th81@umail.umd.edu>Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu : Wednesday, February 24, 1999
08:47 PM

[snip]


>I`m not sure what Rahonavis has. I see very little written about it on the
>net. I seem to remember it having those bony struts in the tail...(think I
>saw it on TV). Anyway, I was just wondering if it wasn`t considered closer
>to Dromaeosaur albertensis (lets say), than it is to the Archie group.

"Closer" - that's their term.
Your original notion, that Rahonavis and the droms split off some way along
the Ax -> modern birds line is fine.


>And that pedal claw, is that considered a synapomorphy with the Dromaeosaur
>condition, or did it evolve separately?
>

The original herpextensibility of the 2nd toe was the basic synapomorphy, if
you like, that Archaeopteryx shared with all the other funny-toe-2'ed
merchants; the bigger, non-ambulatory claw is also a synapomorphy between R
and the droms, in the sense that the droms inherited it from R.


...and...


--Original Message-- From: Larry Febo <larryf@capital.net>To: T. Mike Keesey
<tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>: Thursday, February 25, 1999 01:22 AM

[snip]

[On the subject of the cladistic explantion:]

>Well, I think I`m beginning to understand

When you start to understand it, that's when you want to start worrying!


JJ


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/2099/DinoKabin.html