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

Sinosauropteryx is calling Phil Currie.



Just got Nature's Sinosauropteryx paper this morning.

>"The orientation and frequently sinous lines of the integumentary
>structures suggest that they were soft and pliable, and semi-independent
>from each other."<

>"Under magnification, the margins of the larger structures are darker
>along the edges, but lighter medially, which indicates that they might be
>hollow.
Overall, the integumentary structures are rather coarse for such a small
animal, and the thickest strands are much thicker than the majority of
small mammals..."<

Sounds like music to my ears. I have been saying this for months and Phil
Currie was right of course while Jones et al were wrong.
Chen, Dong and Zhen show us how to do an unbiased analysis: this is by
having the proper material and describing exactly what you are seeing!

However the paper doesn't get far enough. Only two specimens are described
(where's the third?). I was expecting diagrams on the anatomical structure
of the hands and the photographs are not what I expected either (Audubon's
were much better).
So that's why this is message to Phil Currie: we need a more complete paper
including chemical analyses of the integumental structures and the
description of the three specimens with full anatomical details. Is it too
much to ask?

This fossil can represent for the XXI Century what Archaeopteryx was for
the XIX  and XX.
And I'm afraid I might have to change my Sino reconstruction once more: my
hands are probably not big enough and my tail is not long enough either,
but I have run out of board space... I need a bigger one now so I might
have to do a completely new reconstruction... this paleontology business is
tough!


Luis Rey

Visit my Website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey