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


Greg Paul wrote:

Immediately knew it had to be something by that Bakker guy,


As for _Longisquama_... I'm not even sure that little critter even qualifies as an "archosaur" any more. I recall that it may belong somewhere in the vicinity of the Prolacertiformes. At any rate, those things sticking out of the back of _Longisquama_ (which on the odd occasion have been referred to as "parafeathers") probably have nothing to do with real feathers. Hans-Dieter Sues, among others, has written a rebuttal of the alleged feathery nature of _Longisquama_'s appendages. It is not even clear if these appendages served an aerodynamic function - though they have been figured as such.


Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail