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

Re: Audobon bird/dino article



At 01:20 PM 3/16/97 -0800, Bettyc wrote:
>2) It's interesting how the feather-things are grouped along the tail. 
>The feathery things seem to run along the spine in a big, solid path
>until the tail.  The bottom 2/3rds of the tail has displayed along both
>sides of the tail but grouped in patches with an entire vertebrae spaced
>between individual clumps along the tail.  
>Would this have been indicative of rings of feather things seperated by
>bald rings all around the tail or would it have been indicative of two
>paired clumps of feather things appearing spaced along the tail?

   Like _Archaeopteryx_, this is a slab/counter-slab specimen.  From what
I've read, the missing clumps on one slab are found on the counter-slab.
Also, last I've heard is that the feather-things cover the entire surface of
the second specimen, not just the bedding plane, and is complete.

>            "Well, any engineer will tell you that's aerodynamically
>impossible.

   This aerospace engineer won't.  It's damn difficult, but not impossible.
So he's wrong right there.

>In every group of 
>             animals that flies or glides-BATS, frogs, snakes,
>squirrels-it's evolved from the trees down."

   c) how does he bleeping doggone well know some dinosaurs didn't live in
trees?

   Feduccia's problem is that he can't be bothered to find out what the
current theories are in dinosaur science.  He still thinks this is 1960 when
the leading theory *seemed* to be Ostrom's ground-up hypothesis.  Does
*anybody* in the science subscribe to this any longer?

>2) the "chickadee-size enantiornithine from China"
>3) a Jurassic ornithurine 
>              "About the same time as Archeoptyrx, argue Feduccia and
>his 
>              paleo-ornithologist colleague from the University of
>Kansas, 
>              Larry Martin, who site a sparrow-size bird unearthed
>recently in China"

   Yeah, according to Currie and Western dating techniques it's actually
early Cretaceous.  I don't think there's been anything definite yet, but
those who know dispute the Jurassic age given to this deposit.

** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of  ** little freedom for a      **
** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur    ** little security will soon **
** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur     ** find they have none of    **
** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com      ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **