RE: Nemicolopterus phylogeny

[David Peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>]

David Peters wrote:

> "Super claws" would have had a tough time getting
> around anywhere but in the trees.

Well, I'm guessing it got around fine in the air.

          [Coupe.]

PAL 3830 ("super claws") is
the azhdarchoid that shows clear evidence of the cheiropatagium being  
attached
to the ankle.

          [Clear evidence? Time to pony up. I'm eager to see what  
you have.]

I guess your argument is that because the hindlimbs are bound up
in the flight surface, the animal was ungainly on land, and so was  
limited to
the trees.  I don't agree with this at all.

         [This is really cool. You imagine my response then you  
argue against it. Why am I even responding to this? I sense a rant.]

I'd be more convinced of arboreality in PAL 3830 if it showed pedal  
characters associated with
suspensory or prehensile behavior, rather than simply having a 'broad- 
chord' wing.

         [Tim, just for the record, the arboreality of SMNK PAL 3830  
is in the "super claws" which curve an unbelievable semi-circle,  
tripling the length of each ungual. Plus, the penultimate phalanges  
are the longest in each digit series. These are the clues that  
suggest arboreality. Then again, I wasn't there.]


> And Yes, that's yet another tiny pterosaur at the base of a major  
clade.
> Funny how often that happens. Zap! There goes arrow in the torso  
of Cope's
> Rule...


As Mike said, this is actually consistent with Cope's rule.  I think  
that arrow
of yours struck your own foot.  Funny how that happens.  ;-)

         [Ancestors much bigger than descendants in this case. Did I  
misread Cope's rule? Is there an asterisk I missed?]


> Yes (to another question) anurognathids are very close to the base  
of the
> Pteosauria. And like Chris Bennett wrote in 1997 following earlier  
work by
> von Huene (I think), pterosaurs are indeed derived from Triassic  
arboreal
> leapers.


It's a plausible idea, but we need proto-pterosaur fossils to verify  
this
hypothesis.

         [You don't like Sharovipteryx? Which genus is your closest  
candidate? Unwin (2006), the latest word on the subject, said it was  
an unspecified diapsid. Can you get _any_ closer?]

Cheers

Tim