[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur Revolution Review
Not to get this thing started again, but do keep in mind that the majority of
dinosaur skin impressions show that they were scaly. Filamentous integument is
the exception, not the rule.
"I am impressed by the fact that we know less about many modern [reptile] types
than we do of many fossil groups." - Alfred S. Romer
----- Original Message -----
> From: Sim Koning <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2011 5:33 PM
> Subject: RE: Dinosaur Revolution Review
> I'm hesitant to use mammals as an analogy, as it may be a largely flawed
> one. I would much rather look at what we see in birds and other dinosaurs. If
> look as species such as Juravenator starki, we see that the parts of the body
> that would have frequently come in contact with the ground, or were otherwise
> prone to abrasion, retained scales and scutes. Of course another obvious
> would be the feet of many birds. What I suspect is that there may have been
> somewhat of a balancing act between the insulation provided by fur and the
> protection afforded by scales and scutes. We see this in some birds today:
> owls have replaced almost all of the scales on their feet in favor of
> because, in this particular case, insulation is more important than
> 'armor'. Bare skin was probably common in cases in which neither scales
> nor protofeathers were strongly needed, or in lineages close to aves that may
> have largely lost the ability to grow scales on anything except their feet.
> of the more basal dinosaurs probably retained scales on their legs, the
> underside of their tail, and their bellies. In some of the more derived forms
> (such as thyreophorans) the parts of the body that were normally feathered
> armored with osteoderms, scutes and scales, which would have left no place
> protofeathers. It probably wouldn't have made much sense to fill the gaps
> with fuzz as it would have created unnec
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:57:01 -0400
>> From: email@example.com
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Subject: Re: Dinosaur Revolution Review
>> "And I have a hunch that most if not all non armored small dinosaurs
>> were at least partially fuzzy."
>> If this is the case, why assume armored dinosaurs are an exception?
>> Armored mammals typically don't lack fur, at least around the
>> periphery of the armor and on the underside of the animal.