Re: Epidendrosaurus vs. Czerkas' undescribed specimen

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tracy Ford wrote-

> And you know this 100 % how? It hasn't been published on yet (Just so
> everyone knows, it is at the printers and should be out soon. I'll let you
> all know when it's available). Do you remember what the specimen looked
> like? The skull is preserved differently and the tail isn't complete.
>
> You may be surprised about this assumption.

I have photos of Czerkas' specimen.  It is certainly not the holotype of
Epidendrosaurus.  As for it being a different taxon, the tail tapers to a
point after about fifteen vertebrae and is a bit over twice ilial length,
much shorter than the purported tail of Epidendrosaurus.  It's possible the
"tail imprint" of the latter is not entirely real of course, or that the
tail of Czerkas' specimen was sheared at an angle part way through to make
it look shorter.  So 100% certain, no.  But probable, yes.
Can't wait till I have to eat my words when Czerkas' specimen is
published.....

Mickey Mortimer