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

Solnhofen and China.



>But _Archaeopteryx_ of Solnhofen shows feathers.  Are feathers more
>likely to be preserved (as imprints) than their bristle-like
>homologs/precursors?

The preservation of the Archaeopteryx feathers in Solnhofen is completely
different from the kind of preservation that can be seen in the Chinese
specimens. Archaeopteryx shows the impression of fully formed, long
'flight' feathers on the arms and tail. There's no evidence of dawn or
small, fragile feathers even if most probably other parts of the body were
covered with them (some of them might have been destroyed in the
preparation, but we are not sure). There's no evidence of skin either.
That makes it perfectly possible that the bristle or dawn coverage of
Compsognathus disappeared.There's no evidence of skin for Comsognathus so
parsimoniously speaking at this time, Compsognathus was more likely to have
been covered with bristles than scales.

>  It's not
>the same thing as the tridactyl vs didactyl manus.  Compy probably
>had a tridactyl manus.

What is the difference? Fingers or bristle coverage... two organic elements
for which Sinosauropteryx provides the best evidence in the absence of them
on the (closely related) Compsognathus.



Luis Rey

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