Re: origin of bats/reply 2 to TMK

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Peters" <davidpeters@att.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 2:56 PM

> Just hazarding a guess based on pterosaurs and birds: 1) bipedal 
> configuration, fingers get smaller – or maybe not in the case of  bats 
> which probably remained inverted and arboreal throughout  (Sharovipteryx, 
> Coelophysis);  2) fingers get longer, folding  mechanism added (unnamed 
> fenestrasaur, Velociraptor), 3) fingers (or  fingers + feathers) get much 
> longer (eudimorphodontids,  Archaeopteryx) and become volant, no longer 
> used for grasping,  climbing, walking.

Perhaps.

Though let me quibble with a few details: Archie doesn't have longer fingers 
than *Velociraptor* and clearly still used them for grasping (judging from 
phalanx proportions, claw size, claw shape).

> > <If you look at Ptilocercus and Nandinia, both are quadrupedal  climbers, 
> > but both hold their prey with their hands. Both enjoy  inverted 
> > locomotion. Nandinia likes to jump out of trees.  Ptilocercus has a 
> > fairly naked tail. Not much, but it’s a start.>
> >
> >   It is my humble opinion that you're reading too much into this 
> > argument. There are 1) convergences in anatomy, and 2) convergences  in 
> > behavior.
>
> Of course, Drs. Martin and Feduccia, but added to the suite of 
> morphological characters, these add evidence to the case.

Well, by only mentioning those five characters and not the rest of the 
suite, you basically asked for it. :-| Once more, it's simply not possible 
to discuss your results before they are published.

> Jaime, I'm just giving you the cherries on top. There's so much more
> in the dataset.

We will gladly wait for the whole dataset. Talking about a few cherries 
makes no sense.