Re: Mary's article in JVP]

[Betty Cunningham <bettyc@flyinggoat.com>]

(forwarded with Dick's permission)

Betty,
    Yes, it did seem like a long way around only to say very little. But
there's sense to it. Collateral lines of evidence and analysis (in this
case bio-molecular) are increasingly being used to tease information out
of fossils.
    Mary's research has to contend with two big issues: contamination,
and a long logical thread between evidence and conclusion. Hence the
detail she went into to describe and explain the proceedure. I applaud
her tenacity.
    And (as you pointed out) when it's all done, all that can be said is
that the fibrous-looking stuff on the Rahonavis claw is highly likely
the remains of original claw material. Her approach should prove useful
in addressing the question of whether some remains in question are the
fossils of hair or feathers, or just look-alike impressions. Every bit
of additional certainty we can bring to the interpretation of fossils
helps.
    ...   Dick Peirce, Pasadena CA