RE: Archaeopterix? What Archaeopterix....?!

[Jarno Peschier <jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl>]

At 17:28 16-01-96 -0500, you wrote:
>>The trouble would not exactly the splitting (that occurs quite often), but
>>the fact that all the feathers would be visible completely. Feathers are not
>>flat and it's almost impossible that the creature would be fossilised with
>>*all* the wing and tail feathers nicely flat in one plane.
>
>Certainly not.  If the bird died on a flat mud surface and was quickly
>covered, surely all the feathers (and the fossil) would be in the same
>bedding plane - they are not required to be two-dimensional for this to
>happen.  Look at the beautiful Solnhofen pterosaur specimens, with the
>entire wing-membrane preserved in a single plane in specimen after specimen.

Mmm, I forgot about those.

>Not to mention the fact that the wings and tail might well be pressed open
>and flat against the substrate (look at the next drowned gull carcass you see).

I've never seen a drowned gull carcass in my life and it's very possible I
never will. I'm not into anatomy, paleontology or anything in that direction
myself. I'm into computer science (hoping to graduate by this time next
year, approximately).

>>1) Owen did no do it himself, he let someone in Germany do it.
>
>So who did all the others?  Including ones discovered sine Hoyle's book?
>This is nonsense.

I guess it is, after reading all the reactions on this list and the simple
fact that I never heard anything about this theory before I saw the book. It
still remains a nice story however. ;-)

>>2) They are genuine Compsognathus remains. "Only" the feather imprints are
>>fakes.
>>Read the book...
>Note the earlier posting by Stan Friesen.  These are NOT Compsognathus!
>There are clear skeletal differences.  That is why they could tell that a
>featherless specimen once mistaken for a Compy was NOT one!

Well, as I said above: I'm not into these things myself (even though I would
have liked to be). I'm just an interested Mesozoic-nut (like a lot on this
list, I guess) that gets his fragmented info about the period from (often
inaccurate and scientifically obsolete) books, like the one I asked about
now. Since I'm on this list I ask about some things that puzzle me. All the
experts here are bound to have the info I need. And indeed they do, it
seems. Thanks, all of you!

>Once again: the fossils were subjected to intense scrutiny AFTER the book
>was published and the charges conclusively refuted in detail.  Perhaps one
>of these refutations could be cited here?

If someone has some of these refutations I'd love to hear them (read about
them)...

>Finally: if Archie were a fake how do you explain the recent spate of fossil
>discoveries (Sinornis etc) claerly intermediate between it and more modern
>birds in many characters?  It would be like finding fossils linking Homo
>sapiens with Piltdown man.

I'm obvious not quite up to date on that as fell, I guess. Maybe because I'm
more interested in dinosaurs themselves than in bird evolution and the
_exact_ link dinosaurs->birds. Anyway...

>H&W's claims are NONSENSE!

I guess that's clear now.

          Jarno Peschier, jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl, 2:2802/245.1@Fido
      162:100/100.1@Agora, 74:3108/102.1@QuaZie, 27:2331/214.1@SigNet
___________________________________________________________________________
     What was was, before was was was? Before was was was, was was is.