Re: Jurassic Park

[DinosØMP <padron@online.no>]

T. Mike Keesey wrote:
> It is parsimonious to assume that "proto-feathers" and feathers are
> homologous. Therefore, _Velociraptor_ either had integument or secondarily
> lost it. I can think of no reason why a small, non-burrowing, non-aquatic,
> non-wallowing animal like _Velociraptor_ would lose integument.
> 
> Of course it's not proven, since we don't have dromaeosaurid skin
> impressions, but that's why Scott said "*almost* certainly".

Where goes the limit between _scales_, _"proto feathers"_ and _feathers_?
Which of those was what _Longisquama_ was full of?

-DinosØMP
      [D] [I] [N] [O] [S] [A] [U] [R] [S]                        
  <=========================================>
   []               []                    []
   []               []                    []
   [http://home.sol.no/~enrique/dinoklad.htm]
   []               []                    []
   []               []                    []
  |=========================================|
 |===========================================|