RE: Patagium attachment Was: Re: Pterosaur.net

[Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com>]

----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:07:59 -0600
> From: davidpeters@att.net
> To: habib@jhmi.edu
> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu; mhanson54@comcast.net; Mark.Witton@port.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Patagium attachment Was: Re: Pterosaur.net
>

>>
>>> ... Add more meat to those thighs to match the extent of the ilia.
>>
>> Mark's hindlimb builds seem to be quite reasonable to me. There are traces 
>> of the anterior thigh compartment in some specimens when viewed under UV 
>> illumination (the most recent Anurognathus, for example) - these show that 
>> the thigh musculature, while hardly scrawny, was not as thick as you 
>> suppose. In all likelihood, a very broad iliacus ran from the anterior edge 
>> of the expanded ilium to the proximal femur, but the other anterior thigh 
>> muscles seem not to have run that far anteriorly, so the overall thigh was 
>> not terribly deep. This is not actually a surprise, if one looks closely at 
>> the particular part of the ilium which is expanded in pterosaurs.
>
> If what you say holds true for Sharovipteryx (whatever it's relationship) it 
> would have had sticks for legs. That would be untenable.
>
> With regard to "Anurognathus" What you're seeing in the UV images are the 
> ventral muscles attaching to the pubis and ischium. The muscles attaching to 
> the ilium would have been over the ribs, which are exposed, hence, no muscles 
> preserved.
>
> Seriously, send one example of a broard uropatagium, please.
 
 how broad would be broad enough?
 
 
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390710/direct/01/