[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>I suppose whoever named Sinosauropteryx was opting for the other
>-pteryx. I'm not sure, though. "Feather" makes more sense, in the
>Maybe yes, maybe no. I, along with many others, question the "feather"
>nature of these structures. An earlier post seemed to imply they were
>more like quills than feathers. It seems to me that the name may more
>reflect the psychology, beliefs, desires, and expectations of the namer
>than the structure of the animal.
Actually, the name reflects the fact that at the time Sinosauropteryx was
named, it was thought the animal was a fossil-bird (understandable), only
later was it realised that it was in fact a non-avian theropod. The title
of the original description says it all:
Ji.Q. & Ji.S.A. (1996) On the discovery of the earliest bird fossil in
China and the origin of birds. Chinese Geology 233, 30-33
"Its a garbage pod....its a SMEGGING GARBAGE POD!!!"