[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Revising Hou et al, 96



----- Original Message -----
From: "Williams, Tim" <TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:18 PM

> > and the quill knobs that, it seems, appear somewhere in Euornithes and
> > disappear in tinamous and *Piksi*
>
> As the _Piksi_ paper points out, flamingos (Phoenicopteriformes) also lack
> quill knobs (papillae remigalis ventralis) along the ulna.

Oh, yeah, forgot those. As they fly a lot, their case may be even more
interesting.

> > Erm... err... maybe functional, related to the secondarily rather short
> > legs of dromaeosaurids?
>
> Are you so sure the stocky legs of dromies are secondary?  Maybe they
(like
> oviraptorids) retain the ancestral proportions of basal coelurosaurs, and
> the long sprinting legs of ornithomimosaurs, troodontids, tyrannosaurids,
> alvarezsaurids, elmisaurids etc are derived.

The long legs of these groups are certainly derived -- relative to more
basal coelurosaurs like compsognathids and probably *Ornitholestes*. Archie,
*Rahonavis*, *Sinornithosaurus* and the new feathered long-tailed
dromaeosaur have such long legs too, so I think this condition was indeed
reversed in Dromaeosauridae. Probably *Bambiraptor* also counts as
long-legged www.bambiraptor.com/Pages/Bambi.html, but I should gather some
actual ratios.

> > Actually I wonder why Archie is still hailed as their closest relative
> > by so many people.
>
> The foot shows a few birdy features (i.e. the hallux),

Well, this is just one feature, it debatably occurs in *Caudipteryx*, and
exactly how reverted the hallux is is not clear either.

> and so does the skull
> (though, as you imply, many of those are in the eye of the beholder).

Yep -- the triradiate palatine is indeed suggestive, but if *Erlikosaurus*
really has it, I'm not too confindent in this lone feature. (Hm... I hope I
avoid sounding like the next Kinman :-> )

> And then there's the feathers -
> the reason why _Archaeopteryx_ has always been
> considered a bird [...]

until 1996 (*Sinosauropteryx*), or 8 (*Caudipteryx*) if you will. Same for
the furcula.