[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Dinosaur fiction is more real than fact



Referring to the dinosaur-feather debate.

Sometimes dinosaur fiction has proved to become fact when you least expect
it.  Right now, to some, the feathered dinosaurs (GSP's fluffy Deinonychus,
for example) are merely fabrications of some twisted paleontologist's
imagination.  We have, literally, no or little evidence to prove that
dinosaurs had, or may have had, feathers.  But sometimes, unexpectedly,
dinosaur fiction becomes dinosaur fact.

Look at Steve Spielberg, and his movie Jurassic Park.  All of his
paleontological advisors yelled and fussed when Spielberg made his movie
'raptors' far larger than any known dromaeosaur.  In a sense, at the time,
the raptors in JP never existed in the fossil record -- they were mere
fabrications.  But then, shortly after movie production began, guess what?
 We dug up Utahraptor, a dromaeosaur slightly larger than the JP raptors --
showed that Spielberg's raptors actually might have existed!

Sometimes fiction can be more realistic than fact.  

And maybe, just maybe, very shortly we will uncover feather impressions from
a non-avian dinosaur!  (BTW, I don't exactly consider birds dinosaurs in the
first place.)  After all, it is probable.  Literally NO skin impressions have
been found from a small dinosaur, and the punctured surface present on the
Thescelosaurus skin impression may have had once supported feathers.  Little
evidence can support either scales or feathers on small dinosaurs, so right
now we may take either option in restoration.  

IMHO, feathers are, until evidence proves otherwise, simply LOGICAL.

Raptor RKC (Rachel Clark)