Talk:Pygostyle

I'm confused about this point. The article cites the new He et al. paper to claim that Similicaudipteryx had a rod-like, rather than dagger-like pygostyle. I don't have access to the paper, but the abstract clearly states that it's a dagger-like pygostyle, and in fact that this is they key feature uniting it with Caudipteryx, implying that Caudi has a pygostyle as well (it's been restored that way in skeletlas but I don't think it's mentioned in the original description. I'd heard it wasn't preserved in most specimens but present in others?). This article states that Caudipteryx lacked a pygostyle, seemingly contradicting the new paper. The article also implies that Similicaudipteryx did not have a fan of retrices because they were not preserved. Again, not having seen the paper I don't know if feathers were preserved or not, but if it's that close to Caudipteryx, I don't see why we shouldn't assume it had them, as other close relatives like Protarchaepteryx seem to. Dys, do you have a copy of the paper your working from? Can you clear some of this up? Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The one unsourced sentence of this "article" should be supplied with references and included here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oppose These are two completely different biological processes. Manx cats don't have pygostyles. MeegsC (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply