Re: Arboreal? Flying?

["Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <th81@umail.umd.edu>]

At 06:32 AM 4/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Grant Harding wrote:
>> 
>> Which of these animals was probably arboreal, and which could fly?
>> 
>
>Archy, Patagopteryx, Iberomesornis, and Ichthyornis are birds, and I'm
>pretty sure all of them could fly.

Whoa!!!  Patagopteryx is most definitely a NON-flying bird!!

>Compsognathus could have been arboreal; it's certainly small enough.
>
>Procompsognathus -- is that even a valid taxon anymore?

Even if the skull doesn't belong with the body (as Sereno and others have
suggested), the postcranium is still a valid ceratosaurian taxon.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist     Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology              Email:th81@umail.umd.edu
University of Maryland        Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD  20742       Fax:  301-314-9661