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

Re: really big question

Dear List,

    Once again I am getting  responses from people apparently missing my
point. Of course fossils show a different degree of preservation in a single
dig site.
     My point is that Pelicanimimis is, according to the information that I
have received, VERY well preserved, as in one of the most completely
preserved of any dinosaur ever found.The authors claim that it is so well
preserved, that what they first thought were feather impressions, turned out
to be muscle fibers. If Jeff Poling had stated that it was a disarticulated
pile of bones found with some really well preserved fish and fowl, and I was
to claim that according to Ocham's Razor, Pelicanimimis wasn't feathered
because several bird fossils at the site showed feather impressions, and it
didn't, then I could understand the point that some of the list members are
trying to convey. The best preserved fossils at the site show feather and
scale impressions. Pelicanimimis is on that best preserved list, and shows
niether.Thus, according to the simplist answer, it didn't have any.
    I will concede that perhaps I am not understanding others' views on
this, but what appears as condescension and sarcasm isn't going to prove
your point to me.


> Cliff Green wrote:
> >Saying that
> >with all the other animals at the site having this amazing amount of
> >preservation, and Pelicanimimis's feathers not showing up because of bad
> >preservation is at best,  miraculous.
> All I can say is: Allelulah _Archaeopteryx_!
> The individual _Archaeopteryx_ specimens vary greatly with regards to how
> well the plumage is preserved.  I don't think anybody truly believes that
> this reflects the condition in life.  Rather, the differences are
> undoubtedly taphonomic.
> Also, there is no trace of integument in _Compsognathus_, found in the
> lagerstatten as _Archaeopteryx_ - not feathers, not scales, not
> nuttin'.  The fact that Chinese compsognathids show integumentary
> might lead us to believe that _Compsognathus_ had some sort of down-like
> body covering too, but this for some reason was not preserved.
> >     Pelecanimimis's feathers didn't show up anywhere on it because it
> >didn't
> >have any. This is a best guess estimate based on Occham's Razor, not on a
> >theory that states it has to have feathers because so and so's cladiogram
> >says it does.
> I'm glad this doesn't apply to mammals.
> Tim
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/