Re: Metriacanthosaurus

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

>By the way - where do we stand on the I II III/II III IV digits 
business? 

     Still controversial. Most people, though, side with I II III.

> I
>believe Archy and all modern birds and "protobirds" have II III IV; any 
I II
>III theropods will just have to have sprung separately from 4 or 5 
fingered
>forms in the T (maybe even something like Protoavis).

     By what do you define "protobird". Are they "protobirds" in Paulian 
sense or coelurosaurian sense? It should be noted that if we make 
Herrerasaurus a theorpod, the digits are I II III. If Herrerasaurus is 
not a theropod, or even dinosaurian, then the issue is up in the air 
because the first known theropods only have four fingers of uncertain 
identity. 

Protoavis is far too specialized in its wrist structure and braincase 
structure to be ancestral to the other theropods ( carnosaurs ). 

Personally, I think Burke & Feduccia's argument is flawed because it 
assumes an awful lot in the developments of the theropod and bird manus.

 MattTroutman


>John V Jackson    jjackson@interalpha.co.uk
>
>


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