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

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




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
archosaur@usa.net
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:16 PM
To: Zoe Heraklides
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: [Re: [Combined answer: Feathered/scaly theropods: trying to
make the point.]]


"Zoe Heraklides" <z_heraklides@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Jura" writes:
> >
> >
> >So to rephrase: "All dinosaurs should be considered scaly by default,
> >unless
> >there is evidence to the contrary."
> >
>
>
> I think the crux of the trouble here is that the opinions expressed here
are

> very strong and forceful in their presentation. Yet, the opinions are
based

> on little evidence - and based more or less (mostly "more") on Jura's
> assertions about dinosaurs and the Yixian localitie(s):
> (1) all dinosaurs are the same where skin/integument is concerned, so we
> have no right to picture ANY dinosaurs were feathered unless we can prove
> they all were.
> (2) all feathred dinosaurs are found in one tiny locality, which were
> susceptibel to some freaky fungal/dendritic phenomonen which look so much
> like feathers that paleontologists  havebeen fooled into thinking they are
> feathers.
> (3) if some specimens shows preserved integument than they ALL should. In
> other words, Yixian mammals should show hair, Yixian ornithopods should
show

> scutes/scales etc. (But preservation was differential according to the
> nature of the intgegument -  just like Solnhofen and Messel and Santana.)
>
> Assertions 1,2,3 are incorrect. I am not going to accuse "Jura" of being
> uninformed in this discussion/debate. I would say that the strength of the
> opinions are not matched by Jura's grasp of the topic. To say that he has
> not aware of any Yixian birds beside Confuciusornis hints at this. There
are

> at least 20 species of bird so far described, and some have been described
> in major easy-to-get journals (Science, Nature).

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Most of the references to Liaoning that I got came off of the "fuzzy" dino
papers and none were particularly good. _Confusciornis_ was mentioned in
practically all of them, but I never got any good refs for it in the
citations. They either lead to a certain bird book, who's title escapes me,
or
weren't mentioned at all.<<

You do realize that there has been about a dozen articles (or more) written
about Confuciusorins don't you. Last year a monograph was done by Chiappe et
al from the American Museum of Natural History, along with a dozen or named
birds from Liaoning!

You really need to upgrade your library (see the speciemens, ie either at
museums when they traviel there or  God forbid, rock shows) before you make
blanket comments.

The Psittacosaur was in Vertebrata PalAsiatica (and I've seen several at
rock shows).

Tracy