Re: Patagium attachment Was: Re: Pterosaur.net

[Mike Habib <habib@jhmi.edu>]

On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:57 PM, David Peters wrote:


> > Bottom line: the united uroapatagia of basal pterosaurs remains, in  
> > my
> > view, the best supported idea because of reasons discussed at  
> > length in
> > the pterosaur literature.
>
> I hate "reasons." And so should you. Evidence should always trump  
> "reasons." There was good "reason" to put the pteroid in the cup of  
> the preaxial carpal. Just no evidence.

Come on now, I think we all know that when Mark said "reasons" in that  
context, he meant the evidence supplied in the literature.  I  
certainly understood the connotation, and I think everyone else did,  
too - there's no reason to play the semantics game.

> >  Mark, just send me one single bloody example of an unsplit  
> > uropatagium or a deep chord wing membrane and I'll join your  
> > movement. Surely you have one of each tucked away somewhere.

I am confused by your term "movement".  I presume you mean the  
observation that pterosaur membranes seem to have been variable in  
their extent, chord, and and attachment, based on the current fossil  
evidence, as opposed to being universally broad or universally  
narrow?  I think that would be the current best supported model, not a  
"movement".

Cheers,

--Mike H.


Michael Habib
Assistant Professor of Biology
Chatham University
Woodland Road, Pittsburgh PA  15232
Buhl Hall, Room 226A
mhabib@chatham.edu
(443) 280-0181