Re: Abbreviation update (was Re: FUCHSIA)

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Orenstein" <ornstn@rogers.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 4:26 PM

> And I'm still waiting for someone to point out aquatic adaptations in ANY
> [...]

So am I. :-) However, I can resort to 2 positions that aren't testable at
the moment: firstly, who knows what fossils are waiting to be discovered,
secondly, dippers have one adaptation to their lifestyle (ignoring their
terrestrial phalangeal proportions): they can close their nostrils with
flaps of skin that normally won't fossilize. So their absence in all known
relevant fossils need not mean much.
        On the other hand, regarding good old Archie... it didn't run much,
it climbed even less, it lived on rather food-poor islands, and it had teeth
like those seen in, among others, fish eaters... I do think it's suggestive.
However, Archie is not necessary for FUCHSIA, it's just a convenient example
of what an early flying theropod may have looked like.