[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Good news for Iberomesornis fans???
> It may also be a testament to the scanning technique. I used the small
> (less than 2x2") color picture that appeared in Nature (see below)
> whereas others had access to the specimen.
If it's also 800 x 600 dpi like the *P. kochi* you showed us, then I'm
skeptical. I haven't seen anything in this beautiful, large pic; of course
this doesn't mean anything because I haven't tried, I don't have Photoshop
or anything; but I have seen the separate dots (resolution of my screen:
1024 x 800) that make me wonder how anything could interpolate more
resolution into this without producing features that aren't there.
In any case those babies can't belong to that skeleton -- looks
like there is no adult of the nominal species *P. kochi*.
> I'm sorry I missed it
> earlier, but I followed previous reports which I assumed were factual,
> rather than relying on my number one roadkill rule: if it's articulated,
> it's complete.
Maybe I know a good test of this rule: Could you find the head of
*Iberomesornis*? The rest of the skeleton is wonderfully complete and
articulated, but the head is missing (with the first few cervicals). You
might also find gastralia and uncinates, but these, if present, were
probably not ossified in this immature specimen. Feathers are not
impossible either, given the fact that other birds from the same layers
have preserved some.
> For those of you who still regard the scanning technique as inferior to
> actual observation of the fossil, perhaps this ?little discovery will
> quietly sway a few to some small degree of acceptance.
Er... uh... that sounds like we'd seen the fossils to compare. :-)
> Now that we know where the skull is, good first-hand observation should
> be the next step.
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!