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

Re: [Re: [Re: Feathered/scaly theropods: trying to make the point.]]



Jurassosaurus wrote:

> Couldn't it have been contamination that occured at the time of
fossilization
> and not later (e.g. they fell on some funky plant?) and not have occured
> later

That's a stretch.  Care to explain this hypothesis?

> on. As for non-dinosaurian finds with this integument, I agree that if
this
> was contamination then we should see it on other taxons, and I wouldn't
be
> surprised if we already have, but overlooked it. 

I don't know.  These feathers were pretty spectacular when first found...I
doubt anyone would just pass over these finds.

> When was the last time one
> heard of any non-dinosaurian/non-avian finds from that locations. 
> 
> So far I've heard of a possible ornithopod and that one pteradactyl, but
> that's it. 

I've heard of frogs and lizards without the feathers.  And how come the
fish near the foot of NGMC 91 wasn't feathered?

There you go, the fish specimen, clearly photographed without feathers, is
at the foot of NGMC 91 (on a slightly lower stratigraphic level) with no
feathers.

> Why pterosaurs don't want to preserve anything upon fossilization is
beyond
> me. Even ramphorhynchoides in Solnholfen don't seem to preserve fur.

And Archaeopteryx didn't preserve body fluff, or dino fuzz, or body
feathers, for that matter.  So ONLY in the Liaoning area do we find this.

-Demetrios