Re: Bakker comment

["Scott Hartman" <scott_hartman@hotmail.com>]

    Bob wasn't speaking out of his behind on this one.  There are a couple 
of papers published on the imprint, which was discovered by the Reverend 
Hitchcock (long before he made Psycho...).  I believe there have been three 
papers published on the issue of integuement preservation, the only one 
published in North America was in the COntinental Jurassic volume from 1996. 
 They actually mis-interpretted the sitting posture of the animal, which 
was almost certainly a theropod (I've heard Bob Bakker say it was made by an 
ornithopod, but I can't force an ornithopod into the required pose to save 
my biomechanical butt).  I discussed this with the authors, and there may be 
a paper forthcoming on it, but for the artists out there, the animal is 
sitting on its pubis, and the large anterior "feather" impression appears to 
have been made by the stomach and chest region.
    But are they feathers?  If they are, this extends the temporal, size, 
and (probably) phylogenetic range of dino-fuzz substantially.  Because of 
the wieghty implications, the assertation has deservedly been met with some 
skepticism.  Still, the authors have performed empirical tests on resting 
animals with scales, as well as branches dragged through mud, and shown them 
to be less consistent with the impression than those left behind by large 
birds.
    And to second Cliff, they look a heck of a lot life feather imprints.  
To my knowledge no one has published a rebuttal to their investigations, but 
if anyone is interested in a non-supportive opinion, button-hole Jim Farlow 
at the next SVP, I think he's still skeptical.

Scott
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com