|
We have much enjoyed the speculative fictions that have appeared recently on the DML, and elsewhere
(https://twitter.com/JoschuaKnuppe/status/1310656905401044995), regarding the circumstances surrounding our publication of ‘No protofeathers on pterosaurs’ (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01308-9).
There does seem to be a little bit of confusion in the minds of some individuals as to whether we think pterosaurs were naked, or had pycnofibres, or protofeathers, or perhaps even wore a suit of armour. So, to ensure no one is left in any doubt – yes, pterosaurs were naked. We have said this in public several times, first of all in our presentation at the SVPCA held on the Isle of Wight last year, where we made it abundantly clear that we thought they were naked (http://svpca.org/years/2019_isle_of_wight/abstracts.pdf). The use of the word ‘naked’ in the title of our talk was, we thought, quite a big clue as to our opinion.
Next up, the logical conclusion of the ‘No protofeathers on pterosaurs’ paper is that they were naked. No, this idea wasn’t ‘rejected’ by the reviewers (as some have fabricated), the editors insisted that we focus on the arguments put forward by Yang et al. (2018), rather than use the paper to put forward new ideas of our own which is fair enough (yes, we do have the emails… and while we are here, lots and lots of thanks, again, to the many individuals, referees, colleagues and editors, who provided thoughtful and constructive commentary on our MS).
Finally, in our forthcoming SVP presentation (IDENTITY, HOMOLOGY, AND COMPOSITION OF FIBER-LIKE
STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PTEROSAUR INTEGUMENT) we also conclude that pterosaurs were naked – you can read our abstract in the SVP abstract volume (http://vertpaleo.org/Annual-Meeting/2020-Abstract-Volume.aspx). We didn’t actually use the term ‘naked’
in our abstract. However, we did write ‘the integument had a glabrous, fine granular, or even polygonal external texture’ which is a technical way of saying naked (just in case you are not sure).
We realise that the idea that pterosaurs were not cute, fuzzy, feathery little fur balls is rather
upsetting, especially if you have invested years of effort in this concept. The demise of nice ideas is always painful but, don’t worry, you’ll get used to it eventually – we have. While you wait, in a state of feverish expectancy, for our next paper on this
subject (there will be more than one – cue consternation and much froth from the ranks of the Palaeotwitterarti), might we direct you to an excellent publication that we referenced in our recent paper, this being: Campione, Barrett, & Evans, D. C. 2020. On
the Ancestry of Feathers in Mesozoic Dinosaurs. In: The Evolution of Feathers (eds Foth,
& Rauhut, 213–243, Springer, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27223-4).
Curiously, Yang et al., in their response to our response (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01308-9), seem to have overlooked this paper and, oddly enough, whenever we draw it to anyone’s attention we just get the equivalent of a blank stare as if they had never heard of the paper, or wished it didn’t exist. ‘Oh, that paper, ah well, haven’t seen it. Very expensive volume you know…’.
We have a solution: our good friend Paul Barret (NHM London) has recently tweeted (https://twitter.com/NHMdinolab/status/1311590418409193473)
that if you would like a copy of Campione et al. you can email or DM him (whatever that is) and he’ll see you right. So, off you go and read all about the non-homology of (non-existent) pycnofibres with protofeathers, and we’ll get on with shaving a few more
pterosaurs…
The Daves |