[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 Mon, 6 May 2002 Ê7:58:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
"philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net> writes:

>Seems to me like you've included four different speculations:
>1. Êdinosaurs had skin and muscles,
>2. Êthose muscles were of a particular size and in a particular location
>(okay, I'm inferring this one),
>3. Êdinosaurs had certain skin patterns and eye colors, and
>4. Êcertain dinosaurs had some sort of integument.

If I understand the term correctly, all dinosaurs had *some* sort of 
integument, the integument being the skin and any appendages thereupon.

>Suppose that someone decides to speculate on the first 2 or 3, but not the
>fourth. Ê(I'd argue that the degree of certainty for #1 removes it from
>speculation, but I'll stick with your argument.) ÊWould that person be
>wrong, or eccentric, or just making a different choice from your own?

If you draw a dinosaur with naked skin, I would say you are putting forth the 
hypothesis that the animal had naked skin, which, for the taxa under 
discussion, is less parsimonious than the hypothesis that they had fuzzy or 
feathery skin.

--Nick P.