Re: "Dinosaurs Died Within Hours After Asteroid Hit Earth..."

[Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Jaime Headden wrote-

> <Even if one excludes the Solnhofen specimen as Wellnhoferia, the
> Eichstatt specimen is still much smaller than the London specimen, which
> shows no evidence for belonging to a different species (Senter and Robins,
> 2003).>
>
>   Thanks to Mickey for clarifying that it was the _London_ and not the
> _Eichstätt_ specimen that is being considered a different species by
> Senter and Robins (2003) from *Wellnhoferia.* I'd like to point out that
> the London specimen is the type specimen for *Archaeopteryx
> lithographica,* so it cannot be a different species from itself, but is
> considered a different species from *Wellnhoferia.* The Eichstätt
> specimen, one of the smallest specimens, has been considered a different
> species, as well.

Er... I simply meant that all the non-Wellnhoferia specimens lack sufficient
evidence to differentiate them taxonomically from each other.  Thus, your
statement "or the largest specimens, as implicated by
Elzanowski, may belong to different taxa with larger adults than in
"mainstream" Archaeopteryx." lacks supporting data (since you said largest
specimens, a pleural, you must have been referring to more than just
Wellnhoferia).  If you want to argue similarity in plumage between
Archaeopteryx specimens is due to similar ontogenetic stages of differently
sized taxa instead of ontogenetically independent plumage (as Tim was
hypothesizing), you'll need to first show Senter and Robins were wrong in
their failure to differentiate more than one non-Wellnhoferia taxon.
Otherwise your argument is just a hypothetical example that has no basis in
reality.

As for your interpretation of my statement, no I clarified no such thing.
Senter and Robins considered BOTH the Eichstatt and London specimens to be a
different species than Wellnhoferia.
Furthermore, when I wrote "belonging to a different species", I was
referring to the London specimen showing no evidence of belonging to a
different species than the Eichstatt specimen, not of belonging to a
different species than A. lithographica.

>   Yes, the London specimen is one of the largest specimens , but this does
> not invalidate my point: 1) The Solnhofen specimen, the largest, is larger
> by a few degrees in all directions than the London and is considered a
> separate species by some; 2) the smallest specimens have been given their
> own species at some point in history, from the Haarlem to the Eichstätt
> specimens, leaving the mid-sized to near-largest in their own complex of
> species; 3) the Solnhofen specimen lacks plumage preserved; 4) any of the
> mid-sized to smaller specimens can be different species, given "adult"
> plumage in most.

It does invalidate your point.  No matter if any or all of the
non-Wellnhoferia specimens have been separated taxonomically from each other
in the past, or if they hypothetically COULD be taxonomically distinct from
each other, we have no basis for thinking that is true today.  Thus, your
point is contingent upon a reality that is not indicated by the evidence,
i.e. that the largest specimens (pleural emphasized) (Solnhofen and London)
are taxonomically distinct from the smallest (Eichstatt and Munich).

Mickey Mortimer