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

Re: AW: Heterodontosaurid with protofeathers



--- On Thu, 3/19/09, Richard W. Travsky <rtravsky@uwyo.edu> wrote:

> From: Richard W. Travsky <rtravsky@uwyo.edu>
> Subject: Re: AW: Heterodontosaurid with protofeathers
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 12:49 AM
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, don ohmes wrote:
> > --- On Wed, 3/18/09, evelyn sobielski
> <koreke77@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> The really interesting question here - and it is
> one that
> >> is likely to be swamped by a deluge of
> faux-feather
> >> headlines - is: why? What is the use of such
> integumentary
> >> structures? It is hard to see them as evolutionary
> neutral,
> >> so they are likely to have conferred some benefit.
> What
> >> precisely did it evolve for?
> > 
> > Camouflage, among other things. In my view, camouflage
> is the best-guess for the 'original benefit'. The
> thing about camo is, it's benefits can accrue at any
> moment in the lifespan, and irregardless of climate, age,
> sex, or dietary preference. Nor is there any associated
> behavioral requirement.
> 
> Camo would also restrict colors; no bright red, green, etc

Heh. Bright green can work, just not so much in Wyoming in the winter...

More seriously: color often does not matter as much as silhouette and texture 
in camo, even as used today. Deer camo works in dayglo orange, as example. Not 
something a sniper would choose, of course. But the 'striking' patterns of the 
Eastern Diamondback seem to work very well...

Besides, how likely is bright color in 
proto-hair/fuzz/feathers/bristles/filaments/etc?

Don