Re: Re.:Deinonychus critique ? A COUPLE OF COMMENTS...

["SCHMIDT" <ashmidt@flash.net>]

Wow!  I didn't know any potential dromeosaur tracks had been found.  Is
there a place on the Net with pictures of them?
----- Original Message -----
From: "dinotracker" <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
To: <DERidenbaugh@aol.com>; "Dinosaur Mailing List" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 10:43 PM
Subject: Re.:Deinonychus critique ? A COUPLE OF COMMENTS...


>     In Donald Edward Rodenbaugh's nice drawing of a Deinonychus, there is
> something in the reconstruction of pedal digit II (which holds the
'terrible
> claw') that, IMO, needs changing:  As presented, one gets the impression
> that digit II has only ONE phalanx and then the ungual phalanx. In reality
> there are TWO phalanges, plus the ungual phalanx, because the phanangeal
> counts of digits I through IV, respectively, are 1,2,3,and 4, not counting
> an ungual phalanx.
>
>     This reconstruction shortcoming (pun intended) yields an apparent
> awkwardness to digit II, making it look as though the metatarsal
articulates
> with phalanx II, instead of with phalanx I, which seems nonexistent.
>
>     The result is that the 'terrible claw' sits entirely too far back and
is
> rotated a bit too high.
>
>     One further thought: If the seven Early Cretaceous tracks I have found
> here in Maryland and attribute to a dromeosaurid (very possibly
Deinonychus)
> have been correctly attributed, then the narrow spacing that seems to
exist
> between digits II and IV in Donald's reconstruction might better be
widened.
> There has been a tendency by many artists to illustrate Deinonychus'
digits
> III and IV positioned very like those one sees in an Ostrich, but the
tracks
> I find here pretty well convince me that such a reconstruction is
> substantially in error.
>
>     For what it's worth,
>     Ray Stanford
>
> "You know my method.  It is founded upon the observance of trifles." --
> Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery
>