Re: Feathers on dromie's digits and Archaeopteryx ecology

> Only II, not III. III is free and lies under the feathers. This is best seen in Confuciusornis;

OK, I'll study the images I got. Thanks.

>> And that's how I think I'll draw dromaeosaurs and troodontids from now on.

>Fine :-) -- but don't forget to cover the other side of the arms and hands in feathers, too: http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/f11.html and http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/f2.html show feathers on the entire metacarpus, http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/f14.html shows some more distally on the thumb. <

Very clear on this marvellous fossil - it's a big step in the knowledge of the appearence of the dromaeosaurs.

Reichel's Archie:
> The ventral view of the wings is especially magnificent... the restoration of the vegetation is more magnificent than the vegetation actually was, though. (Unless you assume Archie lived 200 km southwest from Eichstätt & Solnhofen... and it's unknown whether the Bohemian Mass island was maybe just as dry as the local coral islands).<

This is always the problem in the reconstruction of species when there's no vegetal remains. And it's always the same discussion: either _Archaeopteryx_ was rather a seaside bird (as on HP Dan Bensen's paintings), or it was capable of perching on trees - so you suppose there were trees on the islands; or it was perching on coral blocks.

I'm an amateur and I'll trust what's currently thought to be the most probable - you'll excuse me, I like large forests :)

Friendly - Luc J. "Aspidel" BAILLY.

ps: the April jokes ("poissons d'avril" in French) were funny.