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

Re: In (premature) defense of the USNM



In a message dated Sun, 5 May 2002 12:58:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Michael 
Skrepnick <palaeopaint@dinosaursinart.com> writes:


>> Any animal observed to have feathery integument should be drawn with
>> feathery integument; any animal not observed to have feathery integument
>> should be drawn without feathery integument.
>> and
>> I have a logical argument which has not been refuted that a certain number
>> of animals I select had feathery integument.
>MS* This is true. There is nothing wrong with maintaining a conservative
>viewpoint

For animals more closely related to modern birds than to _Sinosauropteryx_, the 
"conservative viewpoint" *is* feathered/dinofuzzy.  The creatures that fall 
into this category were all almost surely feathered/fuzzy ancestrally, and to 
draw them without feathers or fuzz is to postulate that they have lost these 
integumentary structures, a contention for which you have no evidence.

--Nick P.