As for integument, recall that Unwin (2000) found Sharovipteryx is characterized by "the presence of long, thin, closely-packed fibres within the membranes that exhibit a striking degree of similarity to the wing-fibres (aktinofibrillae) of pterosaurs", which
seems about as unusual to converge as feathers of the pterosaur/Tianyulong level are.
Mickey Mortimer
From: Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 9:45 PM
To: Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>; dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>; Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Bat flight evolution + dolphin skull shape (free pdfs)
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 9:45 PM
To: Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>; dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>; Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Bat flight evolution + dolphin skull shape (free pdfs)
I agree Mickey. Tanystropheus was recently reexamined and our understanding of that genus has completely shifted. IIRC, the three taxa you mentioned have all been slotted into Prolacertiformes at least once, but that taxon as we know it has been completely
busted apart. Do drepanosaurs, tanystropheids, Longisquama, Sharovipteryx, etc. have anything to do with each other at all? I suppose some of them could be closer to the pterosaur-dinosaur group, although I think the evidence for Pterosauria s.l. and Dinosauromorpha
forming a clade is overwhelming, especially with new knowledge about these groups' integument gathered since 2001.
Also Peters' paleo-artwork (in books from the 80s and 90s) is in my opinion some of the greatest ever done. No amount of subsequent bad science can ever tarnish it in my opinion.
Thomas Yazbeck
From: Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 9:34 PM
To: Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu>; dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>; Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Bat flight evolution + dolphin skull shape (free pdfs)
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 9:34 PM
To: Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu>; dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>; Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Bat flight evolution + dolphin skull shape (free pdfs)
In all fairness, that was before Peters became a crackpot/troll, and the lack of any modern engagement with Longisquama (besides the parafeathers), Cosesaurus or Sharovipteryx is a genuine problem he continues to be correct about. I still think such a relationship
is plausible.
Mickey Mortimer
From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 4:38 PM
To: Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu>; dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Bat flight evolution + dolphin skull shape (free pdfs)
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 4:38 PM
To: Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu>; dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Bat flight evolution + dolphin skull shape (free pdfs)
Anderson stated on Twitter that she wasn't aware of the problems with Peters' work when she wrote the paper. This is understandable as she's not an archosaur researcher.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:34 PM Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu> wrote:
Anderson & Ruxton cite Peters (2001) and seem to accept his very controversial pterosaur - prolacertiform connection at face value. Did they do a deep enough dig into the archosaur literature?
Thomas Yazbeck
From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 2:25 PM
To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Subject: [dinosaur] Bat flight evolution + dolphin skull shape (free pdfs)
Ben Creisler
Recent (mainly) non-dino stuff that may be of interest...
Free pdf:
Sophia C. Anderson & Graeme D. Ruxton (2020)
The evolution of flight in bats: a novel hypothesis.
Mammal Review (advance online publication)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12211
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mam.12211
Bats (order Chiroptera) are the only mammals capable of powered flight, and this may be an important factor behind their rapid diversification into the over 1400 species that exist today ? around a quarter of all mammalian species. Though flight in bats has been extensively studied, the evolutionary history of the ability to fly in the chiropterans remains unclear.
We provide an updated synthesis of current understanding of the mechanics of flight in bats (from skeleton to metabolism), its relation to echolocation, and where previously articulated evolutionary hypotheses for the development of flight in bats stand following recent empirical advances. We consider the gliding model, and the echolocation?first, flight?first, tandem development, and diurnal frugivore hypotheses. In the light of the recently published description of the web?winged dinosaur Ambopteryx longibrachium, we draw together all the current evidence into a novel hypothesis.
We present the interdigital webbing hypothesis: the ancestral bat exhibited interdigital webbing prior to powered flight ability, and the Yangochiroptera, Pteropodidae, and Rhinolophoidea evolved into their current forms along parallel trajectories from this common ancestor. Thus, we suggest that powered flight may have evolved multiple times within the Chiroptera and that similarity in wing morphology in different lineages is driven by convergence from a common ancestor with interdigital webbing.