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

Re: Scaly tyrannosaurs; fact or fiction?




> Am I mistaken or does it really sound like this would put Tyrannosaurus
(and
> with it any other dinosaur) into a clade for which feathery integument is
> known?

Of course. Tyrannosaurs are definitely closer to birds than (to)
*Sinosauropteryx*, and if I'm right, they're even closer to birds than (to)
dromaeosaurs + *Archaeopteryx*...

> > One of these days there will
> > be some interesting news about a certain group of small ornithischian
> > dinosaurs, but I really am permitted to say no more at this time.
>
> Any more information permitted for release now or do we have to wait
> further?

I'm waiting now, too, because *Psittacosaurus* from Liáoníng "has preserved
scales, not feathers", as someone wrote on this list a few years ago. *P.*
isn't so big that one can easily claim secondary loss of feathers, I think
(though I still have to consider this more parsimonious)...

:-)