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

Re: Feduccia ORIGIN



jwoolf wrote:

>In saying this, Feduccia appears to have constructed a very neat
>chicken-and-egg paradox.  Only fully developed feathers would be of any
>use for flying.  Yet he seems to be saying that only an already-flying
>animal could have developed feathers.  Does this make sense to anyone
>else?  It sure doesn't make sense to me.

In its entirety, in the proper context of Fediccia's argument, it does make
sense. That's not to say he's right or that I'm accept the argument as valid.
He isn't saying that an "already-flying" animal is required for the
development of feathers, but that feathers evolved not from a
short-forelimbed, cusorial predator (such as an early dinosaur), but from an
arboreal, long-forelimbed diapsid. He's saying that it's difficult (and
perhaps impossible) to construct a sound model whereby feathers evolved in a
ground-up scenario. 

If he's truly simply choosing to ignore "Sinosauropteryx" (I think it's very
bad to use that name at this point, which is why I didn't before), to even
consider its existence, that's bad. But. It is relatively fair of him to
await a proper description of the animal before he revises his comments on
feathered dinosaurs, I think. Right now, our info on the "feathersaurus" *is*
sketchy.

Am I the only dinobird skeptic on the list?

Caitlin R. Kiernan