Re: Paedomorphosis ( Re: BARYONYX' CLAWS )

["Matthew Troutman" <m_troutman@hotmail.com>]

>>Thus, unless a fossil shows up that is both a clearly and 
>>considerably specialized volant or near-volant form and obviously 
>>represents an ancestor to both birds and at least some theropods, 
>>the "difference" between BCF and BADD may be minimal, >>unimportant or 
impossible to distinguish.

<<We already have such a fossil, although it is somewhat later in the 
fossil record than I'm comfortable with, namely, _Rahona_, the flying 
dromaeosauroid. I'd like to see a _Rahona_-like dinosaur in the Middle 
Jurassic (lotsa luck!).>>

      I don't see how Rahona is a dromaeosauris. Yes, it is 
dromaeosaur-like, but it is different in some features:

1) The proximodorsal ischial processes.
2) Completely reversed hallux. 

     Now since dromaeosaurs lack these two important features, it is 
unlikely that Rahona was a dromaeosaur. 

<< BCF asserts that the arboreal lifestyle came first (so I should call 
it ALCF rather than BCF), and that birds developed powered flight 
(ornithopting) only after a lengthy evolutionary history as arboreal 
animals. These are the major differences between the two paradigms.>>

     So, since I believe that flight came from an arboreal existence, I 
believe in BCF? I have always supported the arboreal origin of avian 
flight and find no incongruencies between theropod anatomy and arboreal 
lifestyle in some of the smaller, birdlike species. 

MattTroutman

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com