Re: Longisquama

[chris brochu <cbrochu@fmppr.fmnh.org>]

>From the specimen I saw, we cannot tell the following:

1.  What these things are (though they look like solid structures and
not composites of filaments).

2.  How they are arranged on the body - single midline series, paired,
etc.

Hans Sues showed some pictures at the Ostrom Symposium of
newly-recovered fossils in museum collections that *probably* represent
isolated scales from Longisquama.  Based on these, they are more likely
solid elongate scales and completely independent of feathers or
protofeathers.

Regarding a point George made earlier - yes, a redescription of this
fossil would be great.  But I don't think there's sufficient
preservation to make it feasable at this time.  The plates in Sharov
(esp. the original Russian version) give a not-so-bad impression of what
is actually preserved.  


chris



Raymond Ancog wrote:
> 
> >From Dinogeorge:
> 
> >How do you know L. >isn't< a dinosaur? Or a theropod? What features of L.
> >indicate to you that it is not a dinosaur or theropod?
> 
> >L. has things that look like feathers and a thing that looks like a furcula.
> >These things are also found in theropod dinosaurs--and, other than in L.,
> >>only< in theropod dinosaurs.
> 
> (My information on _Longisquama_ is based on others' findings, not my own.
> Anyone who can point out to me a reference on the taxon is welcome to do
> so, off-list if possible.)
> 
> That's just it, they look like feathers, superficially. Are they well
> preserved enough to represent an ideal pre-feather stage, ala
> Sinosauropteryx? Same argument for the "furcula."
> 
> Raymond Thaddeus C. Ancog
> Mines and Geosciences Bureau
> Philippines

-- 
----------------------
Christopher A. Brochu
Department of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History
Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60605

voice: 312-665-7633  (NEW)
fax: 312-665-7641 (NEW)
electronic:  cbrochu@fmppr.fmnh.org