Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - socrates1

1
Quote
The more parsimonious hypotheses do not require a frameshift. I would like to understand better the effect of the loss of digit I. It seems that may be the key to everything.

Quote
We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH)

This seems to be saying that the changing transcriptome is the consequence (result) of the loss of digit I. And everyone accepts the idea of the loss of digit I.
It seems that the bird fingers (II, III, and IV) form due to the loss of digit I. There is no need for a frameshift.

Thumbs Down: A MolecularMorphogenetic Approach to Avian Digit Homology (2014) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_Down_A_MolecularMorphogenetic_Approach_to_Avian_Digit_Homology
Quote
At present two approaches prevail: the frame shift hypothesis and the pyramid reduction hypothesis. While the former postulates a homeotic shift of digit identities, the latter argues for a gradual bilateral reduction of phalanges and digits
A form of PRH fits well with the pterosaur to bird theory.
And Socs2 may be instrumental in shortening the large pterosaur digit IV.
Quote
A comparison of digits within each limb shows that the posterior forelimb digits are more strongly differentiated than the posterior hindlimb digits, and forelimb digit III [actually digit IV] exhibits a unique expression of Socs2
There is perhaps not a lot more to be said on this topic.
The transition from pterosaur to a basal paraves like Scansoriopteryx is straightforward and plausible.
Of course people here will not agree to that. I understand.
One of the topics that interests me is how these sorts of alternatives get reflected in a cladistic analysis. Would it affect a cladistic analysis?
(I do not really expect anyone here to actually contribute on this but we shall see).
2
Quote
The more parsimonious hypotheses do not require a frameshift. I would like to understand better the effect of the loss of digit I. It seems that may be the key to everything.

Quote
We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH)

This seems to be saying that the changing transcriptome is the consequence (result) of the loss of digit I. And everyone accepts the idea of the loss of digit I.
It seems that the bird fingers (II, III, and IV) form due to the loss of digit I. There is no need for a frameshift.

Thumbs Down: A MolecularMorphogenetic Approach to Avian Digit Homology (2014) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_Down_A_MolecularMorphogenetic_Approach_to_Avian_Digit_Homology
Quote
At present two approaches prevail: the frame shift hypothesis and the pyramid reduction hypothesis. While the former postulates a homeotic shift of digit identities, the latter argues for a gradual bilateral reduction of phalanges and digits
A form of PRH fits well with the pterosaur to bird theory.
And Socs2 may be instrumental in shortening the large pterosaur digit IV.
Quote
A comparison of digits within each limb shows that the posterior forelimb digits are more strongly differentiated than the posterior hindlimb digits, and forelimb digit III [actually digit IV] exhibits a unique expression of Socs2
There is perhaps not a lot more to be said on this topic.
The transition from pterosaur to a basal paraves like Scansoriopteryx is straightforward and plausible.
Of course people here will not agree to that. I understand.
3
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_Down_A_MolecularMorphogenetic_Approach_to_Avian_Digit_Homology
Quote
The new approach presented here traces the origins of both the FSH and the PRH to a common source: the loss of digit I. We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH).


This seems to be an alternate way to interpret the evidence. If I interpret it correctly, they are analyzing at the molecular level and have a hypothesis that does not include a frameshift. This seems to be different than the earlier study (2011) that we have been looking at.

The more parsimonious hypotheses do not require a frameshift. I would like to understand better the effect of the loss of digit I. It seems that may be the key to everything.

Quote
We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH)

This seems to be saying that the changing transcriptome is the consequence (result) of the loss of digit I. And everyone accepts the idea of the loss of digit I.
It seems that the bird fingers (II, III, and IV) form due to the loss of digit I. There is no need for a frameshift.
Thumbs Down: A MolecularMorphogenetic Approach to Avian Digit Homology (2014) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_Down_A_MolecularMorphogenetic_Approach_to_Avian_Digit_Homology
Quote
At present two approaches prevail: the frame shift hypothesis and the pyramid reduction hypothesis. While the former postulates a homeotic shift of digit identities, the latter argues for a gradual bilateral reduction of phalanges and digits
4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_Down_A_MolecularMorphogenetic_Approach_to_Avian_Digit_Homology
Quote
The new approach presented here traces the origins of both the FSH and the PRH to a common source: the loss of digit I. We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH).


This seems to be an alternate way to interpret the evidence. If I interpret it correctly, they are analyzing at the molecular level and have a hypothesis that does not include a frameshift. This seems to be different than the earlier study (2011) that we have been looking at.

The more parsimonious hypotheses do not require a frameshift. I would like to understand better the effect of the loss of digit I. It seems that may be the key to everything.

Quote
We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH)

This seems to be saying that the changing transcriptome is the consequence (result) of the loss of digit I. And everyone accepts the idea of the loss of digit I.
It seems that the bird fingers (II, III, and IV) form due to the loss of digit I. There is no need for a frameshift.
5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_Down_A_MolecularMorphogenetic_Approach_to_Avian_Digit_Homology
Quote
The new approach presented here traces the origins of both the FSH and the PRH to a common source: the loss of digit I. We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH).


This seems to be an alternate way to interpret the evidence. If I interpret it correctly, they are analyzing at the molecular level and have a hypothesis that does not include a frameshift. This seems to be different than the earlier study (2011) that we have been looking at.

The more parsimonious hypotheses do not require a frameshift. I would like to understand better the effect of the loss of digit I. It seems that may be the key to everything.

Quote
We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH)
6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_Down_A_MolecularMorphogenetic_Approach_to_Avian_Digit_Homology
Quote
The new approach presented here traces the origins of both the FSH and the PRH to a common source: the loss of digit I. We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH).


This seems to be an alternate way to interpret the evidence. If I interpret it correctly, they are analyzing at the molecular level and have a hypothesis that does not include a frameshift. This seems to be different than the earlier study (2011) that we have been looking at.
7
You guys are a laugh. You think if you repeat mindless insults they magically become true. Who do you think you are fooling?
8
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_Down_A_MolecularMorphogenetic_Approach_to_Avian_Digit_Homology
Quote
The new approach presented here traces the origins of both the FSH and the PRH to a common source: the loss of digit I. We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH).

9
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Until their study the FSH people were proclaiming that all the digits shifted. They were just having a hard time showing how. Now they have to contend with the fact that two of the 3 digits did not shift.
And they do not actually have any definitive evidence concerning a hypothetical frameshift of digit 1. The evidence is just consistent with that hypothesis. 
Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity
And since they have said that "digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient" then the evidence is also consistent with a PRH.
I am glad to see them say that "digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient". Perhaps it is obvious but worth confirming.
The total of the evidence presented is that foot digit I is like hand digit II. Nothing else. Nothing. Again not worth arguing. People can argue anything till the cows come home. That means nothing.
10
Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity.

Quote
Overall, these results suggest that the second and third wing digits diverged and may have acquired derived digit identities during theropod evolution, making it difficult to find corresponding digit identities in the hindlimb.

Specific mention of digit 1 shifting while specifically saying "second and third wing digits diverged". Are people pretending the authors are claiming that digits II and III shifted when they specifically say they diverged? This must be another of your famous bluffs. Not worth arguing about.
11
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Until their study the FSH people were proclaiming that all the digits shifted. They were just having a hard time showing how. Now they have to contend with the fact that two of the 3 digits did not shift.
And they do not actually have any definitive evidence concerning a hypothetical frameshift of digit 1. The evidence is just consistent with that hypothesis. 
Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity
And since they have said that "digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient" then the evidence is also consistent with a PRH.
I am glad to see them say that "digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient". Perhaps it is obvious but worth confirming.
12
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Until their study the FSH people were proclaiming that all the digits shifted. They were just having a hard time showing how. Now they have to contend with the fact that two of the 3 digits did not shift.
And they do not actually have any definitive evidence concerning a hypothetical frameshift of digit 1. The evidence is just consistent with that hypothesis. 
Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity
And since they have said that "digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient" then the evidence is also consistent with a PRH.
13
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Until their study the FSH people were proclaiming that all the digits shifted. They were just having a hard time showing how. Now they have to contend with the fact that two of the 3 digits did not shift.
And they do not actually have any definitive evidence concerning a hypothetical frameshift of digit 1. The evidence is just consistent with that hypothesis. 
Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity
14
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Until their study the FSH people were proclaiming that all the digits shifted. They were just having a hard time showing how. Now they have to contend with the fact that two of the 3 digits did not shift.
15
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
16
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
17
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
18
Quote
These results provide evidence that the second and third wing digits are developmentally distinct from the second to fourth hindlimb digits, indicating that digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient.

If digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient then that can be true for the anterior-most digit as well. Right? We don't actually need a frameshift. There is another explanation. The authors have actually given it.
But Faid thinks it is "constrained" for the first digit.
Faid still thinks that the first digit identity is"constrained".
"digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient".
It CAN be!
So it CAN be for a PRH explanation.
19
Quote
These results provide evidence that the second and third wing digits are developmentally distinct from the second to fourth hindlimb digits, indicating that digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient.

If digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient then that can be true for the anterior-most digit as well. Right? We don't actually need a frameshift. There is another explanation. The authors have actually given it.
But Faid thinks it is "constrained" for the first digit.
Faid still thinks that the first digit identity is"constrained".
20
Quote
These results provide evidence that the second and third wing digits are developmentally distinct from the second to fourth hindlimb digits, indicating that digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient.

If digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient then that can be true for the anterior-most digit as well. Right? We don't actually need a frameshift. There is another explanation. The authors have actually given it.
But Faid thinks it is "constrained" for the first digit.
21
Quote
These results provide evidence that the second and third wing digits are developmentally distinct from the second to fourth hindlimb digits, indicating that digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient.
22

Quote
Their "theory" runs contrary to every model of avian digit identity proposed so far.
Including every FSH hypothesis ever published, before and after this study.
Every study folks like to refer to collapses onto itself.
Why have the published studies since this one (2011) not referred to the gems from this study? Why does it remain contrary to every model of avian digit identity proposed so far? Including every FSH hypothesis ever published, before and after this study.
Don't you guys get it yet? FSH is a STORY that changes and changes and collapses. It was only put forward as a story to try and salvage the dino to bird theory. 
Can anyone point to any other study that proposes a frameshift just for digit I and specifically not for the other digits? When I write this I have to try not to laugh.
Anyone?
We have now reached the "so what?" stage. A very interesting stage. You folks have made very good progress.
But let us not just skip by the correct assertion (in bold) from the authors:
Quote
These data show that in the stem lineage of birds the first digit underwent a translocation from digit position 1 to position 2,and further indicate that the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far
As a sidenote it is not correct to have said that "These data show that in the stem lineage of birds the first digit underwent a translocation from digit position 1 to position 2". What is correct is the bold part.
The data can be explained by translocation from digit position 1 to position 2*.
But the data does not "show" that.


* it is not a parsimonious explanation
Why do they say "that the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far? How is what they are saying contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far ?
23

Quote
Their "theory" runs contrary to every model of avian digit identity proposed so far.
Including every FSH hypothesis ever published, before and after this study.
Every study folks like to refer to collapses onto itself.
Why have the published studies since this one (2011) not referred to the gems from this study? Why does it remain contrary to every model of avian digit identity proposed so far? Including every FSH hypothesis ever published, before and after this study.
Don't you guys get it yet? FSH is a STORY that changes and changes and collapses. It was only put forward as a story to try and salvage the dino to bird theory. 
Can anyone point to any other study that proposes a frameshift just for digit I and specifically not for the other digits? When I write this I have to try not to laugh.
Anyone?
We have now reached the "so what?" stage. A very interesting stage. You folks have made very good progress.
But let us not just skip by the correct assertion (in bold) from the authors:
Quote
These data show that in the stem lineage of birds the first digit underwent a translocation from digit position 1 to position 2,and further indicate that the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far
As a sidenote it is not correct to have said that "These data show that in the stem lineage of birds the first digit underwent a translocation from digit position 1 to position 2". What is correct is the bold part.
The data can be explained by translocation from digit position 1 to position 2*.
But the data does not "show" that.


* it is not a parsimonious explanation
24

Quote
Their "theory" runs contrary to every model of avian digit identity proposed so far.
Including every FSH hypothesis ever published, before and after this study.
Every study folks like to refer to collapses onto itself.
Why have the published studies since this one (2011) not referred to the gems from this study? Why does it remain contrary to every model of avian digit identity proposed so far? Including every FSH hypothesis ever published, before and after this study.
Don't you guys get it yet? FSH is a STORY that changes and changes and collapses. It was only put forward as a story to try and salvage the dino to bird theory. 
Can anyone point to any other study that proposes a frameshift just for digit I and specifically not for the other digits? When I write this I have to try not to laugh.
Anyone?
We have now reached the "so what?" stage. A very interesting stage. You folks have made very good progress.
But let us not just skip by the correct assertion (in bold) from the authors:
Quote
These data show that in the stem lineage of birds the first digit underwent a translocation from digit position 1 to position 2,and further indicate that the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far
As a sidenote it is not correct to have said that "These data show that in the stem lineage of birds the first digit underwent a translocation from digit position 1 to position 2". What is correct is the bold part.
25

Quote
Their "theory" runs contrary to every model of avian digit identity proposed so far.
Including every FSH hypothesis ever published, before and after this study.
Every study folks like to refer to collapses onto itself.
Why have the published studies since this one (2011) not referred to the gems from this study? Why does it remain contrary to every model of avian digit identity proposed so far? Including every FSH hypothesis ever published, before and after this study.
Don't you guys get it yet? FSH is a STORY that changes and changes and collapses. It was only put forward as a story to try and salvage the dino to bird theory. 
Can anyone point to any other study that proposes a frameshift just for digit I and specifically not for the other digits? When I write this I have to try not to laugh.
Anyone?
We have now reached the "so what?" stage. A very interesting stage. You folks have made very good progress.
But let us not just skip by the correct assertion (in bold) from the authors:
Quote
These data show that in the stem lineage of birds the first digit underwent a translocation from digit position 1 to position 2,and further indicate that the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far