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

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



Jurassosaurus wrote:

> True enough, but it doesn't seem to stop people from continually
mentioni=
> ng
> dinosaurs with feathers as if it were a default trait for the whole
group=
> =2E
> Feathery theropods seems to be the most popular one, though the
occasiona=
> l
> ornithischian seems to fall in now and again. You know _T.rex_ with
feath=
> ery
> crests, Allosaurs with feathers on the arms that type of stuff. Check
out=
> 
> posts regarding dino metabolism, or theropod behaviour and see how often
> maniraptor gets exapted to all theropods and occasionally, all
dinosaurs.=

So the occasional messenger is screwing up the message.  Don't take it out
on the message.  I don't see many people outside of artistic liscensing
(i.e. some drawings) putting feathers on Allosaurus, with this new evidence
here, at least.

Again, there are lots of people who screw up scientific theories when
relaying them.  That shouldn't reflect on the theory itself.

> More like arguing the validity of _S.prima_ and most of the other
"fuzzy"=
> 
> theropods.

Their validity as genera or as featherd animals?  I personally have spoken
to several sedimentologists, and, along with many geologists from the
geology department of the University of Minnesota, they invariably say that
NGMC 91 feathers cannot be preservational accidents, especially due to
sedimentary anomalies, and are the real thing.  Most biologists would
agree, based off of structural analysis.

I am not sure where the denial line is drawn, but I think there is clear,
overwhelming evidence to say that these are feathery appendages.

-Demetrios