[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 <email@example.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.
>> 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
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.