Re: Feathers as fossilized behaviour (was:Re: Function Talks at Ostrom Symposium)

[Ronald Orenstein <ornstn@home.com>]

>  Not precisely what I meant. I meant to refer to the straitened, neat
>feathers as relating to taphonomic resetting after the animal's death,
>by drowning or whatever.

I gathered that, but I still consider it unlikely - however, this is one
idea that ought to be easy to test.  Get some feathers, separate the barbs,
drag 'em through the water and see what happens....

>  Okay, oviraptors may not have had feathers to preen, yet they (or at
>least two, *Ingenia* and *Conchoraptor) have denticulate margins to
>their premaxillae; who knows what shape the rhamphothecae (if any) may
>have taken on _top_ of those margins.

Perfectly true.

Additionally, diet may have
>presumed loss of teeth, and at first this might suggest additional
>loss of feathers for lack of a preening tool, but dietary habits would
>have not the same pressures for loss as you proposed for
>*Deinonychus*: 

True as well - again, this was a sort of throwaway speculation at the end
of my post.  I gather you buy the main points?
--
Ronald I. Orenstein                           Phone: (905) 820-7886
International Wildlife Coalition              Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116
1825 Shady Creek Court                 
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2          mailto:ornstn@home.com