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

Re: MORE "Dinosaur Planet"dinosaurs!!!(This time with feathers)

Timothy Bridgeman wrote:
> True.The feather remains were from the top 
> half,which is the bird,Yanornis.I should have
> been more specific in my statements.That specimen
> was faked by other means(by grafting two specimens
> together). 

Actually, if you refer to Xu et al. (2000), you'll notice that the Microraptor 
zhaoianus portion of the skeleton, also preserves feathers around the pelvic 
and proximal tail regions.

> I was not referring to every specimen of
> Microraptor ever found,I meant the
> best evidence in favor of feathered 
> dinosaurs,specimens like"Dave"which
>does come from the same source as "Archaeoraptor".

"Dave" (NGMC 91) is not a specimen of Microraptor, but a currently 
'indeterminate' dromaeosaurid, possibly Sinornithosaurus. It does not come from 
the same source as "Archaeoraptor". It comes from the Fanzhangzi quarry, vs. 
the Jiufotang where "Archaeoraptor" evidentally came out of.

> The reason I have no doubts as to validity of 
> Caudipteryx was because that had not come from the 
> same source.However,some of the patches of 
> preserved integument on the specimens
> of Microraptor could possibly have been from birds
> and gotten preserved in the same matrix.

It's not very conceivable that bird feathers were just laying on the carcass in 
such a way that it appeared they were fully apart of it. Have you seen the 
figures in Xu et al. (2003)?

> The plumage seen on the recent specimen of 
> Microraptor,(M.gui,the "four winged"dinosaur)was
> not part of the original fossil.The plumage seen
> on it now is said to be based on the holotype 
> and referred specimen,which was the
> top half of the "Archaeoraptor"specimen,the 
> birdYanornis(not Microraptor).Therefore,while 
> it may be"INCREDIBLY difficult to fake the
> feathers",it certainly is not impossible.

There seems to be some confusion here. The specimen that was the dromaeosaurid 
part of "Archaeoraptor" is the holotype of Microraptor zhaoianus, not 
Microraptor gui.  I've glanced at the paper and it says nothing about the 
plumage being based on the holotype or referred specimens. Neither of which 
have anything to do with "Archaeoraptor" for the record.

> They show more avian features than those of 
> dinosaurs to me.Caudipteryx for
> example is closer to Archaeopteryx than to the
> oviraptorsauria,to which it seems to have been 
> classified. 

Care to explain what those features are?

> (I've noticed that no two paleontologist's 
> view of how the dinosaurs are related one
> another is the same.There are always variations.
> In that light,we are not likely to convince each
> other here.)

The situation is not as dire as you seem to see it. There are many consensuses 
in the different views of how dinosaurs are interrelated. And you both should 
be able to produce convincing evidence of either or one side, otherwise, it's 
not even falsifiable. You've got a statement "[Caudipteryx and 
Protarchaeopteryx] show more avian features than those of dinosaurs to me". Now 
you need to back it up, otherwise, it's a meaningless statement.

> For the same reason that not all Sinosauropteryx
> prima specimens show collagen remains
> (or "protofeathers",whichever floats your boat).
> Some specimens fossilise better than others.

What Sinosauropteryx specimens do not preserve integument?


Nick Gardner
aim s/n Eoraptor22

Need a new email address that people can remember
Check out the new EudoraMail at