Re:Longisquama

["Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Greg Paul wrote:

>  Immediately knew it had to be something by that Bakker guy,

Who?

As for _Longisquama_...  I'm not even sure that little critter even 
qualifies as an "archosaur" any more.  I recall that it may belong somewhere 
in the vicinity of the Prolacertiformes.  At any rate, those things sticking 
out of the back of _Longisquama_ (which on the odd occasion have been 
referred to as "parafeathers") probably have nothing to do with real 
feathers.  Hans-Dieter Sues, among others, has written a rebuttal of the 
alleged feathery nature of _Longisquama_'s appendages.  It is not even clear 
if these appendages served an aerodynamic function - though they have been 
figured as such.





Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail