Re: Thoughts (and concerns) about Epidendronosaurus

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

Thomas Holtz wrote-

> I am very dubious of the nature of the "tail impression": no part of the
> tail is preserved, only an apparent impression in (admittedly) the proper
> position between the (unquestionably theropod) hindlimbs.

If the tail is lepidosaurian or otherwise not the caudal impression of
Epidendrosaurus, it would be very plausible to assign Czerkas' specimen to
the genus.  Note there are about seven caudal vertebrae preserved outside
the impression, parallel to the presacral series.  Also important to such a
reidentification would be the supposed integumentary traces associated with
the tail, that are said to resemble Microraptor.

> And the big problem: the manus.  It is not found in articulation.  The
long
> isolated digit is interpreted as digit III, preseriving phalanges III-1 to
> III-4.  However, there is not evidence at present to show that their
"III-1"
> isn't really a metacarpal II, in which case the longest digit here would
be
> digit II (as in theropods typically).  Futhermore the only digit for which
> some of the elements seem to be in place is in the proper position for
digit
> III, although they identify it as digit II.

I would normally agree with you here, but not for the fact that Czerkas'
specimen has two articulated manus, which are identical to how Zhang et al.
illustrate Epidendrosaurus' manus.  Note Zhang et al. do not mention or cite
Czerkas' specimen.

> But that works if and only if these represent the same (or closely
related)
> taxa.  Do we know if Czerkas' specimen is a Yixian animal or a Daohugou
> Formation animal?  (I know, I have to wait for the paper. :-) I have this
> grave fear that the most we can be certain is that it is a Tuscon Rock
Show
> animal... urk!!!).

I've been wondering about the horizon and locality data for Czerkas'
specimen as well.  Looks like we'll know soon, if Tracy is right.

David Marjanovic wrote-

> The Feduccia &
> Nowicki paper says "A deep split between neognathous and paleognathous
birds
> is evidenced by Lower Cretaceous fossils of the paleognaths *Ambiortus*
and
> *Otogornis* from Mongolia and China (Kurochkin 1999)." I suppose this
> identification is as suspect as his classification of Enantiornithes?

Indeed it is.  Chiappe (2001) placed Ambiortus as a non-carinate
ornithurine.

Mickey Mortimer