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

Re: Meet Protopteryx: two Yixian maniraptorans in one week!

Insisting ad nauseam.
It seems that Mr. Lurio should check again the Nature article from the 23 of
November that features a paper on "The 'feathers' of _Longisquama_," by Robert
R. Reisz and Hans-Dieter Sues.  The feathers, they believe, "are highly
modified scales"..." rather than feathers."  Also, these structures "were
anchored in the skin or epaxial muscles."  The article just stated the obvious
and what virtually everybody saw from the beginning (to put it mildly... those
structures have NEVER shown any real branching and the inprint has always been
more similar to the impression left by a wing of an insect than anything
remotedly similar to a feather)... A feather is a feather, noit the caricature
of one (and that is what Longisquama has on its back).  Ruben's study of the
'feathers' of Longisquama and its relationship with 'birds' has been an
embarrassment from the very beginning.

Perhaps  Lurio can come with the missing lower half of Longisquama and a show
us a better detailed study of its anatomy to defend all the nonsense written
about this little known reptile? It will also help to check the spelling.

I'm expecting that it will be demonstrated that Martin and Feduccia's
hypothesis of how feathers developed  will be "hypothesis rejected!!" sometime
very, very soon. And with hard evidence.
The paper by Richard O. Prum "Development and Evolutionary Origin of Feathers"
from the University of Kansas is much closer to what the evidence is showing
us. I think he is definitively on the right track.

Next we know and we'll be hearing "The origin of feathers: Parachuting
reptiles had  prostethic fern fronds inserted on their backs".

ELurio@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/7/00 5:53:42 PM, tholtz@geol.umd.edu writes:
> << _Protopteryx_ is a nearly-complete enantiornithine, with a good skull.
> Lots
> of great skeletal information there, potentially.  The article focuses on
> the long _Confuciusornis_ like tail feathers, which lacks barbs or rami at
> the proximal end.  The authors suggest the following evolutionary series in
> the development of feathers:
> (i) elongation of scales
> (ii) appearance of a central shaft
> (iii) differentiation of vanes into barbs
> (iv) appearance of barbules and barbicel >>
> Isn't it funny that in the recent "refutation" of Longisumata (sic) that
> what's described in (i) above was laughed off has having nothing whatsoever
> to do with the evolution of feathers!
> eric l.

Luis Rey

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