[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Feathered Dinos
O.K. So this is going to sound like a stupid question, but...
My understanding of a chimaeric organism is one in which the specimen is
composed of the parts of different specimens (like the aforementioned
head, avian torso, and alvarezsaurid hindlimbs, or the chicken with the
a quail). In chimaeric fossil specimens it would seem like you would
accusation in association with a jumble of bones (like in river or
where the bones of several animals may have washed down stream & gotten
a log, or in situations where a predator may have a lair & deposits
prey species there). In situations where the specimen is layed out in a
pose on a slab, the way Archaeoraptor appears to be (from the Nat.
pictures on the web-page--not the best views, but..), how can it be
thought of as
a chimaeric animal? This would almost sounds like another Piltdown man,
several of the leading vertebrate paleontologists (Phil Currie comes to
have looked at this and concluded that it is indeed a feathered
others had the chance to do an in-depth examination of this specimen? I
question is, how can a specimen in natural orienation (all bones in
that they would normally have been in, rather than jumbled up) be
Probably a stupid question, but something that has me a little
Thanks for your time,
> In a message dated 10/27/99 3:02:00 PM EST, NJPharris@aol.com writes:
> << I don't know if I should be the first to mention it, but it was
> numerous times at SVP that Archaeoraptor is itself a chimaera.
> the head looks (to me) dromaeosaurid or troodontid, the torso like
that of a
> bird, and the feet like a tiny avimimid or mononykine. The tail
> rather unnatural long, stiff rod. >>
> Why is it that any fossil that doesn't fit the cladogram/theory of the
> called a chimera? Not to say Archaeoraptor is or isn't one, just that
> particular excuse is getting a little overworked (Protoavis, Avimimus,
> Rahonavis, etc.).