re: E and P of pterosaurs - more comments

[david peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>]

Dave Peters (davidrpeters@earthlink.net) wrote:

<DP: I mentioned a reconstruction, David. All you have to do is ask to see
it. It's unpublished, but that's okay. And it was based on a viewing of
the actual specimen in Italy.>

jh:   Even so, a reconstruction is an interpretation. 

dp: And in pteros, even a raw tracing is an interpretation.  You have to start 
somewhere.

jh: it would have to be
independantly viewed for proper and effective interpretation by anyone
else. 

dp: And that's what I'm offering.


<2. Let's code Campylognathus for "skull smaller than glenoid-acetebulum
distance." It appears in C. liasicus, but not in C. zitteli.>

jh: My comment on this would be that one form may be a younger animal than
the other, representing a larger head relative to trunk length than in the
other animal. This must also be taken into account. 

dp: the big-headed creature is a magnitude larger.
 
<3. Let's code Dorygnathus for "manual digit III longer than metacarpal
IV". It appears in SMNS 50164, but not in the Donau specimen.>

jh:   Any positive evidence this isn't due to displacement? That the
metacarpal of one isn't pulled distal to the carpus, or in the other
proximal to it, where in crushing the metacarpal would not show any sign
of such displacement if viewed from a drawing or distant photograph?


dp: It surprised me also the variety of sizes in pterosaur fingers and toes. 
It's codable.