Many thanks to everyone who responded to my question about
_Protoavis_ material. Now for episode two.
<<<I do not recall anyone setting down
in print (in the technical literature)an element-by-element, taxon-by-taxon
description of the _Protoavis_ material, but opinions voiced by various
authors seem to converge on several points:
The braincase is probably
theropodan;
The manus is probably rauisuchian (and Sereno 1997 suggests
it is a foot, not a hand);
Some of the limb elements are
some non-archosaurian diapsid (can't recall what was the suggestion:
prolacertiform, maybe?).>>>
My question is, has anything changed since HP Holtz's
post? Has any of the information he posted been called into question
in the intervening time? Can anything now be added to his
list?
Any new thoughts on what type of theropod the braincase
belonged to? Coelophysoid? Herrerasaurid?
And also, what WAS the suggestion for the identity of
"some of the limb elements"? WAS it
prolacertiform? And which limb elements in particular?
Thanks a lot. Peace out,
-Grant Harding
Still,...one would think that if Protoavis were a random
grouping of several animal parts, there would be at least some redundant
parts,...(like extra arm bones, foot bones, different types of vertebrae). I
believe George O. already pointed this out....and a good point it is.
Statistically, the more animal types it is supposedly composed of, the more
redundancy of parts you would expect, ....(unless you are implying it was a
skillfully put together "Piltdown type" of
hoax).