Re: Feduccia's delusion

[HPB1956@aol.com]

Rob Schenck wrote at 12/02/2001:

> I think it is not possible to argue that feathers evolved twice.  

This is a very important point in this "character game" regarding BAND. Feduccia wrote in "The Origin and Evolution of Birds" (second edition, page 135): "The one feature of Archaeopteryx, other than feathers, that is unique to birds is the furcula." This means that feathers evolved only once and only in one group of animals, Aves.

So according to BAND if feathers are unique to birds, then they can't be found on theropods. To defend BAND you have either to declare that theropod fossils with preserved feathery integument are in reality birds and not theropods, or you have to dismiss the preserved integumentary structures as misinterpreted and being something else.

For example Geist et al argued that the integument of Sinosauropteryx is organized in a fashion consistent with the collagenous connective tissue fibers which support midline frills of extant (semi-aquatic) animals. And Larry Martin was quoted in an ABC article as saying that he wanted to see fossils of lizards and other critters from Liaoning in case they show similar "feathers"--proving that the halos are not external integument.

This game has been played more and more intensively since the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. Because more fossils with some kind of feathery integument have been found in China up to now. And with more existing fossil evidence regarding the distribution of feathery integument it's getting more and more difficult to refute BAD in such a manner.


Cheers

Heinz Peter Bredow