Re: New Genus for Archaeopteryx

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com>]

Jerry D. Harris wrote-

> ABSTRACT: The Solnhofen (Sixth) specimen of _Archaeopteryx_ is assigned to
> _Wellnhoferia grandis_ gen. et sp. n. on the basis of qualitative,
> size-independent autapomorphies. _Wellnhoferia_ differs from
_Archaeopteryx_
> in a short tail with the estimated number of 16-17 caudals; a nearly
> symmetric pattern of pedal rays II-IV with metatarsals II and IV of equal
> length and digit IV substantially shorter than in _Archaeopteryx_; and the
> number of four (instead of five) phalanges of pedal digit IV, which most
> probably results from a phylogenetic reduction rather than individual
> variation. A combination of large size and details of the pelvic limb
> suggests a locomotor specialization different from that of
_Archaeopteryx_.

I'm suspicious to say the least-
The tail is broken after the fifteenth caudal.
The reduction to three pedal phalanges in digit IV woud be a very strange
thing to happen.  I like the individual freak mutation idea better (only one
foot is complete enough to tell).
Isn't it odd that digit IV is shorter than other Archaeopteryx specimens,
when this one has one less phalanx? ;-) I didn't think so.  This seems like
a correlated character then.
Similarily, how odd the foot is more symmetrical when normal assymetry comes
from digit IV being longer than digit II.  If digit IV is shorter than it's
supposed to be, obviously the foot will be more symmetrical.  Another
correlated character.
As for size, the London specimen is a whole 10% smaller than it.  Hardly
seems significant.
I'll wait for the paper to make my final judgement, but Elzanowski's case
isn't looking good right now.

Mickey Mortimer