Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC?

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

>  We can ignore, for example, that in *Caudipteryx zhaoianus* the manus is 
> even more avian-like than that of say, *Archaeopteryx* in that the third 
> digit is so highly reduced it has lost the distal phalanx and ungual, 
> resulting in a marvelous 2-3-2-0-0 (or 0-2-3-2-0) formula that exists 
> otherwise only in the ornithurine radiation.

(And in *Sapeornis*.)

> Note that Hinchliffe's abstract in the same volume (I've not read the 
> paper) has a special reference to the fact that he dismisses, seemingly 
> out of hand, the frame-shift hypothesis, or even where the frame-shift is 
> supposed to have occured.

Well, I do think that hypothesis is wrong or at least unnecessary, but 
that's because of the prepollex, something I bet Hinchliffe doesn't 
mention... I'll read his paper sometime, though.