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


Tim Williams wrote-

> After all, _Sinosauropteryx_ has a feathery
> integument; but its kissing cousin _Compsognathus_ does not.  In
> _Compsognathus_, the absence of feathers (especially in a specimen
> in the same depositional environment as _Archaeopteryx_) is likely due to
> secondary loss.

Here's something interesting described by Ostrom (1978) regarding
Compsognathus' holotype- "A striated or linear pattern does occur proximally
at the lower edge of the ischium, and also between the right radius and
ulna.  In both of these sites, the striations are parallel to the adjacent
bone edges.  There also appears to be a very faint lineation along the
dorsal region of the proximal caudals close to the tip of the right dentary.
Nopsca's "fibers" may well represent impressions of soft tissues."

Peter Buchholz wrote-

> Most of the feathers preserved in Archaeopteryx are the large primaries on
> the wings and tail.  As far as I know, none of the softer contour feathers
> are preserved in any specimen of Archaeopteryx.

There are also at least twelve secondaries, major undercoverts (Lodon,
Berlin), middle undercoverts (London), minor undercoverts (London, Maxberg)
and tibial contour feathers (Berlin, Maxberg).  Elzanowski (2002) also
mentions contour feathers on the posterior neck, wing and tail, but does not
go into details.  But it's true that most Archaeopteryx specimens don't
preserve contour feathers, so the perhaps more delicate stage 1/2 feathers
perhaps present in Compsognathus might not be expected to preserve.

Mickey Mortimer