Re: Feducciary challenges

["Mickey_Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com>]

Ken Kinman wrote-

>      Just passing along some challenges (concerning Norell's new
> dromaeosaur) from the anonymous Feducciary who I quoted once before.

Hey Ken, pass this along to the Feducciary if you will.  The Details on...
segment will be out tonight or tomorrow at latest, but until then....

>      The "feathers" of this fossil show up as brown stains on the slab,
and
> yet the brown stains in this picture are missing from the area contacting
> the femur.  But there are lots of brown stains several inches away from
it.
> Are the "feathers" on the femur several inches long with the proximal
parts
> not preserved?

The tufts do not show up as brown stains, there is simply a large brown
stain in the area between the legs.  For instance, note the tail feathers
are preserved where the stone is still grey.  The tuft impressions can be
quite clearly seen in feather9 above the crack as well, as striations almost
perpendicular to the femur.  And yes, tufts on the femur are over 45 mm
long.

> It would be highly unusual to say the least.  If so, then
> this "dino-bird" has "leg warmers": long feathers sticking out of its
> thighs.  How an animal can run with long stiff feathers sticking out of
its
> thighs is beyond my imagination.  Also note the striations in the matrix
> between the femur and the brown stains.  It appears that these lines are
> present even when the integument/"feather" (brown stains) isn't there.

The tufts were not necessarily stiff, as they do resemble elongate down
feathers most.  I would expect there to be a thick pelage of downy feathers,
including very elongate tufts projecting from the back of the thigh.  Plenty
of modern mammals have areas with long fur, this dinosaur could have been
similar in this regard.  See above for why you wouldn't expect the stains to
coincide with the integumentary remains.

>      Concerning the claim that this fossil is a dromaeosaur, I see no
> evidence of a sickle claw.  If this is the closest "nonavian" relative of
> birds, then it disproves the hypothesis that dromaeosaurs are the sister
> group of birds.

There is a large sickle claw on digit II of the pes.  It is quite visible in
a figure in the description, available at the Nature website, but not at the
AMNH site.  The ungual is overlapped by the other digits, but is very long
and not as curved as Deinonychus.  If you would like this figure, please
e-mail me.  Also, this specimen isn't necessarily the closet non-avian
relative of birds.  That distinction could quite easily go to Rahonavis or
Microraptor instead, for instance.

>      Lastly, the claim that dinosaurs needed insulation is simply
ludicrous.

Whether they needed it or not is unimportant, this specimen (and several
others) had insulation.  Why they evolved it is another question, but is not
directly relevent to the issue of whether birds descended from them.

Mickey Mortimer