Re: Protoavis Material, Episode II

["Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Larry Febo wrote:

>     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).

Non-redundancy of parts only holds up as evidence *against* the composite 
nature of _Protoavis_ if every body part is known to be correctly identified 
(the manus as a manus, pubis as a pubis, etc).  Many people have disputed 
Chatterjee's identifications of certain elements.  Sereno, for example, has 
said *in print* that he suspects the manus of _Protoavis_ to be a pes.  If 
he's right, then the pedal elements are duplicated, and come from more than 
one animal.  In the same vein, I have heard that there is some doubt 
regarding the identity of the pelvic elements.

This isn't the final word, of course.  This is just to let you know that 
"redundancy of parts" is an unresolved issue when it comes to _Protoavis_ - 
as has been pointed out many, many times on this list.

By the way, this is not intended as a slur on Sankar Chatterjee - so, 
please, no references to Piltdown or hoaxes in any responses to this post.  
Maybe there are genuine bird bits mixed among the _Protoavis_ material.  
Hey, we have a Early Jurassic therizinosaur, why not a Late Triassic avian?


Tim


















_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp