Posted on 05/06/2008 5:27:49 PM PDT by Soliton
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html
Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called “feathered dinosaur,” which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year’s vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens. ...Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin-and so have nothing to do with birds. — Ann Gibbons, “Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur,” Science, vol. 278, no. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
rior to the publication of the article “Dinosaurs Take Wing” in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Sloan’s article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that “makes” the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that “we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals” is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.
More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that “hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers” is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.
The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.
Sincerely,
Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution — “Open Letter: Smithsonian decries National Geographic’s “editorial propagandizing” of dinosaur-to-bird evolution;” http://www.trueorigin.org/ birdevoletter.asp
Hint: try Archaeoraptor for one.
>Called Eoconfuciusornis, it is a missing link between the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx, and more advanced birds that have been discovered in the Yixian geological formation in China.<
Since when did Archaeopteryx become a bird?
Typical PC science from New Scientist.
Name one besides that hoary Piltdown joke.
Typical PC science from New Scientist.
From Wiki:
Archaeopteryx, sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is the earliest and most primitive bird known. The name is from the Ancient Greek ἀρχαῖος archaios meaning 'ancient' and πτέρυξ pteryx meaning 'feather' or 'wing'; (pronounced /ˌɑrkiːˈɒptərɨks/ "AR-kee-OP-ter-iks").
Archaeopteryx lived in the late Jurassic Period around 155–150 million years ago, in what is now southern Germany during a time when Europe was an archipelago of islands in a shallow warm tropical sea, much closer to the equator than it is now.
Similar in size and shape to a European Magpie, Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.
The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[1][2] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.
Looks like Helen Thomas and Barbra Streisand. Oh, that would explain why evolution slowed down for about 25 million years.
They are the “missing links”.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Fractal Trader. I'm feather adding to the catalog, but not sending a general distribution. :') |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Yep, half a dozen say that, and all the rest say that they're wrong and those are feathers.
The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers.
We've found undeniable feathers on multiple dinosaur species now, such as Caudipteryx, Microraptor gui, and Pedopenna. Many more dinosaurs preserve filamentous protofeathers. The theropod Velociraptor has quill knobs on its forearms showing that it had true vaned feathers, although we have not found a fossil preserving these feathers yet. (Since feathers are much more fragile than bone, even many bird fossils are found without hints of feathers.)
Have to disagree.
Archaeopteryx means “ancient wing” not “first bird”. It is not a decendent of aves. Birds did not derive from archaeopteryx. And it did not fly, although some recent renderings have it perched on tree limbs and flying all over the place.
We think that it was probably cold-blooded and that the feathers were used for temperature regulation and catching prey, as well as flapping and jumping.
Did birds descend from dinosaurs? Maybe. But not from archaeopteryx.
It is a controversial dinosaur.
I don’t recommend Wiki or New Scientist as technical sources: too PC.
Regards,
We think that it was probably cold-blooded and that the feathers were used for temperature regulation and catching prey, as well as flapping and jumping.
Did birds descend from dinosaurs? Maybe. But not from archaeopteryx.
You have me confused. The following is from the Univesity of California Museum of Paleontology:
A particulary important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica, found in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany, which is marked by rare but exceptionally well preserved fossils. Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time.It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.
But you say "We think that it was probably..." If you have some other sources I would appreciate links. If you are actually working in the field, you are ahead of me and I will gladly accept correction. I did a lot of human osteology and fossil man courses in grad school, but have not studied the fossils in any real depth since them.
bump
Like Coyoteman said, it is called the urvogel sometimes, and that means "first bird".
It is not a decendent of aves.
Some classify it in Avialae, a group containing some other basal birds and feathered dinosaurs and also containing Aves. Others place it as the most basal member of Aves.
And it did not fly, although some recent renderings have it perched on tree limbs and flying all over the place.
Archaeopteryx was capable of powered flight, although more clumsily than modern birds. It probably chiefly used its wings for wing-assisted incline running.
We think that it was probably cold-blooded and that the feathers were used for temperature regulation and catching prey, as well as flapping and jumping.
Who is "we"?
Did birds descend from dinosaurs? Maybe. But not from archaeopteryx.
Transitional fossils are not species that were direct ancestors of living species, but occurring along the line of descent. Pretty much everyone places Archaeopteryx on the line to Aves, either basally in Aves or preceeding Aves in Avialae. This does not mean that modern birds are descended from Archaeopteryx specifically, but that Archaeopteryx typifies a stage in the transition from dinosaur to bird.
It is a controversial dinosaur.
Not really.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.