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

Re: [Longisquama non-feathers]



> Apparently, Rubens has recently claimed that the structures on the back
> of Longisquama were actually feathers. I always thought they were just
> elongated scales (although so are feathers). Does anyone have any
> information on this, because if they are it would mean that feathers are
> plesiomorphic for Archosauria, as Longisquama isn't an archosaur. I
> personally doubt that they could be homologous to theropodan feathers,
> but does anyone else have any input on this, and the evidence (if any)
> that they are feathers?

A recent Nature paper (can't dig up the ref right now :-( ) says the scales
on the back of *L.* are thick (convex, sediment-filled), continuous and
wrinkled, whereas feathers are extremely thin and branched, so *L.* does not
have feathers or protofeathers of any sort. =8-)