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

RE: Feathers on Bloody Everything

On Friday, May 28, 1999 11:07 AM, Dinogeorge [SMTP:Dinogeorge@aol.com]   

> [...] These integumentary structures could just
> as easily have been secondarily derived from modern feathers (e.g.,   
down) as
> they could have been integumentary structures retained unchanged from   
> protofeather form. Calling them "protofeathers" places an unwarranted   
> into the minds of listeners pro the current cladistic rage of   
> avian evolution.

I see your point, but what do you suggest we call these things then?   
Should we keep calling them "integumentary structures" all the time?   
While I can see this would/could be the "better" (more correct) thing to   
do, I can already tell you that's probably not going to happen.

It's (almost) a fact already, I think, that people will simply prefer   
calling these things protofeathers for all kinds of reasons: shorter   
name, "sounds better", this designation as already been used quite   
extensively already in this context so it's familiar, it might fit better   
in ones theories, and possibly countless others reasons.

(Mind you, of course this all does *not* mean you should "go with the   
flow", give up on it and simply call them protofeathers yourself too! All   
I'm saying that the word "protofeathers" as used for these structures is   
probably already here to stay...)

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Jarno Peschier

Attachment: WINMAIL.DAT
Description: Binary data