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

Re: Feduccia Reviews Paul's DOTA, Comments

>   The main objections in this review are that Paul's art is stylized
(often it
> is not, Feduccia is likely refering to the skeletals)

And, boy, am I glad that the skeletals are stylized! Otherwise I wouldn't be
able to afford the book!!!

> "[...] Archaeopteryx is illustrated as a terrestrial creature,
> hyperextending its second toes. Yet Archaeopteryx did not have a
> dromaeosaur-like hypertrophied second sickle claw[;]" pg. 916). I gather

this is not a contradiction. A hyperextendable 2nd toe, and a sickle claw on
same, are 2 independent characters.

>   Alvarezsaurids are treated as ornithomimids;

The fun is that, likely, _here_ we have a case of convergence due to a
terrestrial, cursorial lifestyle. LOL LOL LOL...

> [his sic, not mine]

Some people seem to assume that sic means "spelling in context". It doesn't.
It's Latin for "precisely so" and used internationally for "exactly that's
how it says it in the original".

> Feduccia has accepted
> *Microraptor* as a dinosaur, but it has feathers. So feathers can occur in
> non-avians? So it doesn't come down to the feather?

Logic? Bah. Logic is something for cladists.

>   Feduccia builds on this with "He [...] readily accepts evidence for
> a furlike pelage on pterosaurs, generally not accepted by
paleontologists." He
> seems to have completely ignored the most recent histological studies,
where at
> recently as Unwin and Bakhurina (1994) and Lü (2001) have both regarded
> existence of pterosaurian "fur" to be _real_.

There once was a paper (wasn't it U & B 1994?) which showed that, contra
Sharov, the long, parallel fibers on the wings were the famous wing
stiffening "actinofibrils" and not hair, _while the rest of the fibers was
indeed hair_. Feduccia already missed/ignored the 2nd part of this in his
1996 book where he declared with a lot of authority that pterosaurs didn't
have hair.

> "totally and dramatically dissimilar, and second,
> does this mean that the shoebill (Balaeniceps) is extinct?"


> There's more. Feduccia write: "For example, in Predatory Dinosaurs of the
> he illustrated the giant sauropod Mamenchisaurus reared up on its
hindlimbs, a
> feat almost inconceivable for that creature given its size

Aaah, another argument that runs "_I_ just can't imagine it". Oh joy.

> "Paul finds no evidence for avian cranial kinesis or birdlike feathers in
> skull of Archaeopteryx[.]" And why should Paul?

Especially, why should he find feathers _in the skull_? Or what's going on
here? And aren't feathers birdlike anyway, regarding the utter nonexistence
of the stage I feathers of *Sinosauropteryx*?