kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,628
A recent study has uncovered evidence of the possible coloration of a particular dinosaur, Sinosauropteryx, to be that of reddish-orange like Conan O'Brien's hair.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100127/ap_on_sc/us_sci_dinosaur_color
I'm not bringing this up here to dispute the evidence (having not even read the research paper yet) but the strange stance of one paleontologist, Alan (John? - this, I think is a misnomer) Feduccia of the University of North Carolina. Has he not seen the actual feather-like fossilized imprints associated with many theropoda (ignoring his tenuous bacterial hypothesis)? Does he still have reservations about the close evolutionary link between avialae and dinosauria despite all of the dinosaur-like bird fossils and bird-like dinosaur fossils and many odd similarities between theropods and birds (very similar body structure, hollow bones, beaks in some, etc.)? Did he miss the latest accepted cladograms which include avialae in the general group of theropoda?
He may have a point that birds evolved away from theropoda earlier than we currently accept. But that there are many physical connections between the two shows a common descent apart from other archosauria (which led to neo-reptiles and mammals). But I think his disagreement that dinosaurs could have proto-feathers is protesting just to heap support on his hypothesis. There is no reason why both avialae and theropoda, almost certainly closely related at some point in history, couldn't have had such features.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100127/ap_on_sc/us_sci_dinosaur_color
I'm not bringing this up here to dispute the evidence (having not even read the research paper yet) but the strange stance of one paleontologist, Alan (John? - this, I think is a misnomer) Feduccia of the University of North Carolina. Has he not seen the actual feather-like fossilized imprints associated with many theropoda (ignoring his tenuous bacterial hypothesis)? Does he still have reservations about the close evolutionary link between avialae and dinosauria despite all of the dinosaur-like bird fossils and bird-like dinosaur fossils and many odd similarities between theropods and birds (very similar body structure, hollow bones, beaks in some, etc.)? Did he miss the latest accepted cladograms which include avialae in the general group of theropoda?
He may have a point that birds evolved away from theropoda earlier than we currently accept. But that there are many physical connections between the two shows a common descent apart from other archosauria (which led to neo-reptiles and mammals). But I think his disagreement that dinosaurs could have proto-feathers is protesting just to heap support on his hypothesis. There is no reason why both avialae and theropoda, almost certainly closely related at some point in history, couldn't have had such features.
