[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ptero fuzz distribution?
Jim Cunningham (email@example.com) wrote:
<It has never been demonstrated that these are not post-mortem disattached
actinofibrils or other structures. There is presently no evidence that I am
aware of that indicates that they are hair-like structures (structures with
function similar to that of hair, whatever their actual makeup).>
I would discount this, either, but I do not think they should be assumed to
be actinofibril remnants, either, as a null condition. There are two features,
and their nature should be independantly ascertained. However, in
*Beipiaopterus*, actinofibrils are present as well as the "hairs," so there are
independantly viable means of seeing which structure is which on the same patch
of dermis. Dermis where the 'fibrils are preserved as impressions, though,
don't seem to have preserved traces of the "hairs", yet even, integument seems
lacking in MANY Solnhofen fossils as well, to make those skin impression-based
fossils difficult to quantify.
Jaime A. Headden
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around