>It's rather annoying that there's no picture with the article!
>It would be interesting to see whether the fish had the long
>humerus-sort-of bone of the coelacanths.
>
>BTW, isn't the coelacanth an unlikely candidate for a tetrapod
>progenitor? It's a heavy, deepwater fish, and its long fins seem
>built for a sculling type of action; they lack the sturdiness
>necessary to even begin to crawl on land.
First, you are correct that coelacanths are not considered as likely a
candidate for the ancestor of tetrapods as are the panderichthyids.
Panderichthyids had humerus and a skull that lacked the internal joint which
tetrapods have and lack respecitively. I am not sure from the AP report
whether the fish is a coelacanth or a pandericthyid. I hope to have the
article today.
But there is one correct of the above. Ancient coelecanths were not
deepwater creatures. Most lived in freshwater.
>
>--
>Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com
>
>
>
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm