Re: Protoavis is part pterosauromorph, no details about Novacaesareaia, etc.

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Jaime A. Headden wrote-

>   Thankfully, Mickey has personally examined the tightly held and 
> secretive
> *Protoavis* fossils and compared them to ... what?

Thankfully, Jaime realizes that he has also formed opinions based on wriiten 
and illustrated data instead of personal examination and presented them on 
his website.

> <I had to examine Huene's figures of the Coelophysis "type" material now 
> that
> Eucoelophysis is a silesaurid, and most of it is coelophysoid, with only a 
> few
> possible exceptions.>
>
>   What's the referrence for Silesauridae and what are the apomorphies for 
> the
> clade? And for that matter, what's the referrence for *Eucoelophysis* being
> incontrovertibly found to be a member of such a clade? Or is this an 
> abstract?

Where were you to chew out Scott for using the term 'silesaurid'?
http://dml.cmnh.org/2005Aug/msg00175.html
And for that matter, what's the reference for anything being 
incontrovertibly a member of any clade?  Or is this science?
In any case, I agree with Irmis, Nesbitt et al. that Eucoelophysis is a 
'silesaurid' after comparing the photos in its description with the figures 
of Silesaurus.  The femur is especially convincing, as Silesaurus shares 
Eucoelophysis' supposedly apomorphic proximal groove and is nearly identical 
in shape.

Mickey Mortimer