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

Re: more about "feather" find




> yet evolved in mammals? what was the size smallest
> discernible detail on the impression that is used to
> conclude *Estemmenosuchus* had naked skin

We do not need discernible detail. Absence of integument traces in rocks 
derived from fine-grained lacustrine sediment usually mean that the carcass was 
nude at the point of embedding. This can be due to taphonomy (waterlogged 
carcasses shed integument before disarticulating; see some Archie specimens) or 
genuine.

Basically: if you can discern different internal organs but no "keratin halo" 
in a number of fossils, would that not suggest haitlessness?

We know that, as far as can be told, all birds were feathered. So, the limit of 
embedding conditions for feather traces to remain would be the detection limit 
for this type of integument. Ditto mammalian hair. Bristles, like here, would 
leave traces even under worse conditions.


Eike