Re: Protoavis

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

<Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 14:31:07 -0500
From: "Patrick Norton" <ptnorton@email.msn.com>
To: "Dinolist(message)" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Protoavis (was: Rahonavis....Both!)
Message-ID: <000f01be6287$baad9e40$445efbd0@oemcomputer>>


<I've studied Chatterjee's "The Rise of Birds" pretty closely from the
perspective of someone attempting a sculptural reproduction of the skeleton
of Protoavis, and have found a lot of problems in his illustrations--pieces
that don't fit, scale bars that appear to be simply wrong, illustrations of
the front and back of certain bones that (at least I) can't reconcile in 3
dimensions, etc. I was also troubled about the absence of photographs of the
actual material--everything is presented as an illustration.  I don't mean
this as a criticism--all these shortcomings are probably my own--only as an
observation that it's difficult for me to tell whether Protoavis had those
characters without something more than what is presented in "The Rise of
Birds."

If there are other publications on the postcranial Protoavis material, I'd
be interested in reviewing it.>

I`m, (no doubt), predjudiced in favor of Chatterjee because it fits in
nicely with my own theory.
Everything I`ve read about it also comes mostly from his book, with its neat
drawings and all. I`ve also heard a lot of critisizm that his finds were
mostly in bits and pieces etc. All I`d like to say is... if in what he has
found, despite its disarticulated condition, the presence of an acrocoracoid
process can be determined, what else could it have been? Small Triassic
theropod has been suggested, but why would a theropod have such an advanced
flight related structure? Can a definite acrocoracoid be determined? Anyone
know the details??? I`d like to know as well.