Skip to content

In case David Peters decides to conveniently delete it

December 30, 2012
Apologies for the two grammatic mistakes.

Apologies for the two grammatic mistakes.

Basically, the argument that Piksi is not a pterosaur – other than David Peters twisting the holotype to have a curvature – is because the authors of the new paper were intellectually dishonest in regards to depictions of the radius.

However, the alternative, that it is a bird, is not optional either, considering the absence of bulbous ectepicondyles on most birds – the general tendency seems to be towards reduction in most taxa, and nigh absent in the fowl-like forms Piksi is considered to be – and, most importantly, that the holotype is blatantly compared and showed to be fairly close to Arambourgiania, an azhdarchid pterosaur.

Furthermore, twisting a holotype’s pic to form a curvature strikes me as intellectually dishonest – certainly far more so than the authors of the paper.

Bottom line: evidence so far points out that Piksi was a pterosaur, even if not an ornithocheirid.

EDIT: An identity as a pterosaurs seems indeed most likely according to Mickey Mortimer:


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: