Re: New paper on fish fingers

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

>  David, I think [y]ou are trying to argue for the ribs + plates in 
> *Odontochelys* based solely on their similar appearance. Note that the 
> *Chinlechelys* authors made their allusion to independant ossification 
> ONLY because they observed sutures between the elements. You have not even 
> gone that far, but are inferring more based on [y]our observations.

Well, sure. I haven't seen the specimen.

(And take your keyboard every few weeks, hold it upside down, and beat the 
dust out.)

> Note that n[eur]al plates in *Odontochelys* are apparent, distinct, and 
> textured, while the ribs appear to have a unique morphology, which may or 
> may not have anything to do with them being fused to plates. You have a 
> LONG way to climb just to make a thesis regarding coossification in 
> *Odontochelys*.

But the same holds the other way around. One can't claim *O.* has broadened 
ribs just because no sutures are visible. I am taking into account that the 
broadened part is not as thick mediolaterally as in *Eunotosaurus* and 
*Pumiliopareia*, where it apparently is as thick as the rest of the rib 
(I'll check that for *Eunotosaurus*), but much thinner -- it really looks 
like a plate lying of top of a rib. That only the neurals are sculptured 
just means that only the neurals were directly attached to extra-tough skin 
or scutes, which is perhaps not surprising in an aquatic animal.