Re: Jurassic Park

["Peter Von Sholly" <vonrex@gte.net>]

Right. And if you couldn't PROVE that the modern elephants were NOT wooly,
you'd "have to" illustrate them that way.  But you would still be wrong. 
And, sure, maybe little dromaeosaurs differed from big ones, or later ones,
or ones that lived elsewhere.

----------
> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> To: vonrex@gte.net; DINOBOY@worldnet.att.net; jpoling@dinosauria.com;
dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Jurassic Park
> Date: Monday, September 28, 1998 8:49 AM
> 
> In a message dated 98-09-28 06:09:56 EDT, vonrex@gte.net writes:
> 
> << AND YET... If we knew of elephants from fossil evidence only, and
found
>  impressions indicating "wooliness" on mammoths, we would doubtless
assume
>  that "modern" elephants (and rhinos for that matter) had "wool" too and
>  would restore them that way.  Which would be wrong.  So you may claim
that
>  you "should" draw dromaeosaurids with feathers because creatures far
more
>  distantly related to them than the elephants I mention are to each
other,
>  had them.  So you "could" be wrong if you did.  >>
> 
> My point, vis-a-vis elephants, would be this: We can demonstrate that
modern
> elephants aren't woolly, so we do not illustrate them as covered with
hair
> like that of mammoths. But if we knew only the integument of woolly
mammoths,
> the >burden of proof< that elephants are not woolly would still be on the
> artist.
> 
> Anyway, perhaps some dromaeosaurids were well feathered and others--say
the
> larger ones--were not.