Re: Hesperornis sp. nov.

[Tommy Tyrberg <tommy.tyrberg@norrkoping.mail.telia.com>]

Rob Gay wrote:

>However, it is rather presumptuous to say that anything based on less 
than a perfectly preserved skeleton (I know that's a little over the top, 
but none the less) should be rendered invalid. Have you personally looked 
at this material in question? Are you 100% sure it undiagnostic. Sure, the 
remains may be wanting a little more, but such is the nature of the fossil 
record. Perhaps it just grates on my nerves because most times a new 
specimen is announced, it seems to be disregarded as "s/crap"...seems 
somewhat unscientific, in my opinion. Single elements can be, and are, 
diagnostic in many cases.<

I couldn't agree more. Since Stephan Pickering´s objections were 
specifically about fossil birds (which is what this hominid sarcopterygian 
prefers to call avian theropods) I would like to point out that in 1969 
Hildegarde Howard described _Plotopterum joaquinensis_ from a single upper 
end of a coracoid and stated that it belonged to a new family 
Plotopteridae, related to but distinct from Anhingidae and 
Phalacrocoracidae, and furthermore that it was probably flightless (Howard, 
H. 1969: A new Avian fossil from Kern County, California, Condor 71:68-69). 
That might seem pretty daring from just a single "scrap of bone", but she 
was right on all counts.

Tommy Tyrberg