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

Re: protofeathers

>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:43:33 EDT
>From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
>To: jpeschier@one.ogilvy.nl, 102354.2222@compuserve.com
>Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
>Subject: Re: protofeathers
>Message-ID: <8e48e4b8.248d42a5@aol.com>

>In a message dated 6/7/99 3:06:18 AM EST, jpeschier@one.ogilvy.nl writes:

><< Ehh... how about Pterofuzz? ;-)  >>

>Excellent choce of name. Identifies the animal group and tells all we know
>about the nature of the dermal covering.

OBJECTION! 8^)....Of course I have to object here, believing as I do that
some kind of close relationship >might< exist between birds and pterosaurs.
To start naming structures in a way that might serve to separate these
groups would be inappropriate. Much more objective to study these structures
up close (if possible), to determine if they are not actually comparable,
and then let the true nature of these structures provide evidence of wether
(or not) these two groups are in fact closely related.

PS, I don`t like calling it "fur" either. This implies it was in some way
"mammal-like" (which, no doubt, is how some people like to view them), and
again, is very misleading.

Please,...let`s just call it "integumentary fibres", ...until we really know
what it is for sure!