tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post4354591161174708892..comments2024-03-18T18:17:34.333+01:00Comments on Theropoda: Le Cronache di Deinonychosauria, Terza Puntata - Rahonavis: uccello, dromaeosauro... o entrambi?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-65087832894127581132009-01-13T13:24:00.000+01:002009-01-13T13:24:00.000+01:00Dear Mickey,The "ontological" status of Rahonavis ...Dear Mickey,<BR/>The "ontological" status of Rahonavis is hypothetical, while the one of Epidexipteryx not.<BR/>We KNOW that Epidexipteryx skull and Epidexipteryx postcranium belong to the same animal, but we DON'T KNOW it for "Rahonavis wing" and "Rahonavis without wing": assuming that Rahonavis is a single animal is only a hypothesis, that can be tested with other hypotheses. Given that ForsterAndrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-38916864663105796652009-01-13T04:35:00.000+01:002009-01-13T04:35:00.000+01:00I don't know how meaningful your test is. If you ...I don't know how meaningful your test is. If you ran Epidexipteryx's skull separate from scansoriopterygid postcrania, I bet the skull would group with oviraptorosaurs and the postcrania with paravians. Or if you coded oviraptorid skulls, they would probably end us as birds, while the postcranium was more basal. Different parts of animals can clade more parsimoniously apart from each other.<BRMickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.com