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

Re: Feathered Dinos





-----Original Message-----
From: Casey <Tuckercj@muohio.edu>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 8:08 PM
Subject: 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
>actually
>composed of the parts of different specimens (like the aforementioned
>dromaeosaur
>head, avian torso, and alvarezsaurid hindlimbs, or the chicken with the
>brain of
>a quail).  In chimaeric fossil specimens it would seem like you would
>find this
>accusation in association with a jumble of bones (like in river or
>stream habitat
>where the bones of several animals may have washed down stream & gotten
>stuck on
>a log, or in situations where a predator may have a lair & deposits
>different
>prey species there).  In situations where the specimen is layed out in a
>death
>pose on a slab, the way Archaeoraptor appears to be (from the Nat.
>Geogr.
>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,
>but
>several of the leading vertebrate paleontologists (Phil Currie comes to
>mind)
>have looked at this and concluded that it is indeed a feathered
>dinosaur. Have
>others had the chance to do an in-depth examination of this specimen?  I
>guess my
>question is, how can a specimen in natural orienation (all bones in
>positions
>that they would normally have been in, rather than jumbled up) be
>chimaeric?
>Probably a stupid question, but something that has me a little
>perplexed.
>
>Thanks for your time,
>
>Casey


I don`t think the question is stupid at all. (in fact I was going to ask it
myself). I would think that it could easily be determined by close study of
the matrix whether or not it was put together artificially or not.