Neither have I, though I really should. That dead-end thing seems to just be from the Graphical Abstract they provided:Shoopwoop17 wrote:While I haven't read the paper yet, the use of the term "dead-end" just feels like the authors are baiting rebuttal. Using terms like that strikes me as unprofessional, or "click-baity". But yeah, as you said, we'll see about evidence. The fact that they made this study so soon after we learned of the existence of this group... again, it feels like they are claiming too much.Gomi: Ninja Monster wrote:On that subject, poor scansoriopterygids. Something about the phrase "evolutionary dead-end" makes me involuntarily defensive, but I suppose until more evidence to the contrary comes to light then that's that. Gotta say though, I know they're just rough reconstructions for the math and I of course am not a scientist, but something about these Yi wing reconstructions always feel off to me. Something unnatural. Like if in the future some new discovery reveals that the real position of the styliform is totally different from these, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
But again, I havent read the paper, so I don't know what evidence they presented.
Whereas in the summary they end with:
That comes off much more professional.Our results show that Scansoriopterygidae are not models for the early evolution of bird flight, and their structurally distinct wings differed greatly from contemporaneous paravians, supporting multiple independent origins of flight. We propose that Scansoriopterygidae represents a unique but failed flight architecture of non-avialan theropods and that the evolutionary race to capture vertebrate aerial morphospace in the Middle to Late Jurassic was dynamic and complex.
Added in 5 minutes 6 seconds:
Actually, this reminds me of back when Microraptor was the hot new dino on the block, I remember there being aerodynamic tests made that had to be redone when they figured out the hindlegs couldn't stick all the way out to the sides like the arms.