Re: Integument. . . extant vx extinct

[Michael Skrepnick <palaeopaint@dinosaursinart.com>]

My reasoning / comparison was intended to be more be along the lines of the 
following. . .

Examples of cosmopolitan crustaceans exhibit "tufting" ( as you have noted ) 
are commonplace, whereas this newly described form takes that adaptation to 
an extreme. . . likewise the relationship between birds and terrestrial 
dinosaurs although recognized historically in theory for an extended period 
of time. . . has been greatly elevated through confirmation of feathery 
fossil integument and our appreciation of that very fact.

It's far from a perfect analogy, but my comment was directed more to the 
scope of diversity within organisms and how that effects and impacts our 
processing of fossil taxa and concurrent data, than a direct correlation 
between crabs and dinosaur feathers. My statement goes more to the point of 
discovery, and if in our modern world we are able to uncover extant species 
that are such marvels, I wonder what future awaits us in terms of new fossil 
material and methods of analysis yet to be developed.

If a lowly invertebrate in subterranean gloom finds it necessary to evolve 
an exaggerated "plumage" evocative of costuming in burlesque dancers, how 
immense is the iceberg of untapped information that relates to the diversity 
and derived adaptations among lineages that dominated this planet over a 
time span we can barely conceive, and of which our representative sample 
size is realistically only the smallest of visible fragments exposed at the 
surface ( iceberg analogy again).  As our level of understanding grows, 
what's the "next big thing"?  In context, will feathers on dinosaurs be 
eclipsed by revelations over time through continued research and advances in 
technology and related disciplines that will move our thinking and 
understanding of dinosaurs to new and unexpected levels of insight? . . . 
and what will that look like?  I think it's comforting from a temporal 
perspective to be "in the moment" and at the forefront in current 
understanding ( of dinosaurs) as we know it.  The "facts" in paleontology of 
a mere century ago dictated such things as "sauropods in excess of the 
largest then known, 60-80 feet in length were incapable of independent 
terrestrial locomotion, outside of being bouyantly supported by a body of 
water" which to their credit was based on the best information and 
understanding of the time,  however the "state of the art" has undergone 
dramatic changes in the interim. At the SVP meeting of 2106 ( likely to be 
held in a "Best Western Satellite" space station hotel and intergalactic 
convention center ), I would be fascinated to hear the conclusion to the 
following remark, " Remember back in 2006 when they actually believed. . ."

On an almost completely unrelated tangent and in recognition of the power of 
visual imagery, I think what struck me most about the photo of the crab was 
the similarity in form of it's "hair" to "feathers", which lead to 
"protofeathers", etc. . . not to imply in any way that crustaceans, molluscs 
or their primitive predecessors might be one step away from powered flight 
;0). . .  however don't be alarmed if my next thread title reads, "Fuzzy 
Foraminifera. . . Fact or Fiction!"


MIke S.





> In all fairness, hair seems to be widespread among crustaceans.  Just from 
> my dining experiences, I can recall the tail fins of lobsters are lined 
> with hair, and I think king crabs have tufts on their claws.  So this new 
> galatheoid is more like a mammoth being found when only modern elephants 
> were known, as opposed to finding fully feathered dinosaurs when all you 
> know are ones with crocodilian-like integument.
>
> Mickey Mortimer