Re: OVIRAPTOROSAURIA! Part One [Overview]

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Paul Willis, the Croc Guy, wrote:

<I hate to disagree with Ray (remember what happened last time?) but,
if feather impressions have not been found, then their presence in
oviraptors must remain speculation and be stated as such. Being fair
to Ray, he did say that it should be specultaion which he then
transmuted into a probability. My real beef is with the original post
which simply said oviraptors were feathered. No hint here that it is
speculation.>

  I may have had my wording wrong, then. The website's a little
clearer on the issue. I did not say they were feathered, but that much
of the evidence points to a probability in that direction. I actually
said it implicated the condition of feathers. Note, the dictionary (at
least mine) defines "implicates" as _points a finger at_, not _proves_.

  Jaime A. Headden

P.S.:  No beef with you, Paul. Unclear posts again.... I dread the day
I write a published paper....
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com