[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
About the new Zuni theropods
Parsimoniously speaking we have a therizinosaur with feathers (Beipiaosaurus)
and we have no therizinosaur without. So reconstructing it with feathers is
appropiate. Same with the theropods:We have no theropod smaller than two meters
with scaly skin and several with feathery integument, so parsimoniously
speaking, the correct reconstruction is with such integument. You may accuse
the segment of oportunistic and disingenuous according to the fact they are
talking about the animals having feathers when we have no hard evidence of
external integument and only bones for precisely those animals... but then, at
the moment of the reconstruction they decided and they decided for the correct
I found the segment rather beautiful and life-like(better that WWD). Great
animation.. I'm also glad that they apparently used my own "The New Chinese
Revolution" painting as inspiration for the integument distribution of the
therizinosaur and its naked belly... I may be wrong but if Jim Kirkland had a
hand on this, this must be the case... there's a striking similarity.
Jordan Mallon wrote:
> Has anyone noticed this giant push that the two new Zuni theropods seem to
> be getting in terms of supposedly being feathered? I know these new finds
> show no traces of integument at all, but a segment that I saw on this
> morning's Discovery Channel really seemed to embrace the idea that these
> animals were indeed feathered, to the point that it was almost misleading.
> I'm not saying that I don't think these dinosaurs had feathers or not, but I
> do think that pushing the idea that these dinosaurs where feathered when we
> really don't have any direct evidence for saying so is... disingenuous.
> Who's with me!?
> -Jordan Mallon
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey