POSTDINOFEST

[GSP1954 <GSP1954@aol.com>]

The slide projector WAS evil. 

Concerning Ralph Chapman's post Dinofest comments on my work on
Sinosauropteryx. Perhaps people are not aware that I am working closely will
Phil Currie on this, and he just saw the specimen again in December. I also
use high resolution photographes supplied by Phil and elsewhere. Ergo, I am
effectively operating under the conditions associated with a well documented
specimen, because I have already seen the data. As it happens, it looks like I
will soon see the specimens first hand. But to be frank, it's not likely I
will learn much more than what Phil (who is better than interpreting fossils
than I) has already shown me and the rest of us. In particular, the photograph
I showed concerning the breakage on the type was provided by Phil, who
identified much of the damage in his last visit. As far as I know, no one who
has carefully examined the the specimens has directly challanged Phil's
observations. Not surprising, because the breakage, preparation and repair
work really are there. 

In contrast, the Oregon State group is not working with someone engaged in
such intense ongoing work on the Chinese specimens. At this point, they can
only continue to say that they think the septum and body contours they think
they see in photos are, maybe, or should be present. As far as I know, Larry
Martin has not been able to return and refute Phil's observations. 

Padian was quite right about the inappropriate attempt by Geist to use the
null hypothesis to put the burden of proof upon those who argue that the
Sinosauropteryx fibers are superficial insulation. At this point the evidence
for the latter is much better than that for the Oregon State hypothesis that
the fibers are internal collagon. 

In particular, in their abstract the Oregon State group plus Martin said that
the fibers "clearly appear to be contained within impressions of the body
outline". Phil has now shown - following his latest examination - that the
supposed "body outline" in all cases is definitely nothing more than prep work
or breakage, depending on the specimen.  

What was disturbing was how Geist, in his subsequent talk, handled this. When
he got to the slide showing the line superficial to the fibers, he said
something to the effect that his group interprets this as the body outline,
and that the question - under the corresponding assumption that the fibers are
internal - is then what could they be. No mention of Phil's demonstration just
minutes before that the line is absolutely prep work. Later Geist showed the
third Sinosauropteryx (1st time I saw it), and claimed that an area
surrounding the length of the tail was the fleshy part. Again, this is prep
work according to Phil. It is truly quite shocking. The Oregon State group has
no actual evidence that the fibers are internal, or collagon. Yet they not
only continue to press the issue, they claim they are advocating the
conservative position! This when the reviewed and detailed paper in Nature as
shown that the fibers are external. 

At this point the published and unpublished evidence that the finely tapering
fibers were insulation external to the skin is excellent. So much so that the
burden of proof is now upon those who wish to argue that the fibers are
internal collagon. For their alternative hypothesis to have any validity at
this point, they must first EXAMINE THE SPECIMENS, then demonstrate in a
convincing manner that the fibers really are internal. Heaven forbid that they
publish something before then. 

Not as certain, but getting there, is whether the fibers are feathers. So far
there is no reason to think otherwise. As Mary showed in her superb talk, some
feathers are nothing more than simple tapering shafts. The seemingly hollow
nature of the Sinosauropteryx and Mononykus fibers is a feather feature. Brush
argued that feathers probably started out as simple hollow fibers. Birds
really did descend from derived theropods, and the latter show abundant
evidence of being high metabolic rate endotherms, so feathers are very
possible if not probable in preavian dinosaurs. Eventually, the required tests
to settle the issue once and for all will be done (why no one has yet done the
measurements that can discriminate between collagon and keratin escapes me).

Ruben did somethihng else that was annoying. He lectured us dinosaur people
that we should take the new hand homology work by Feduccia and Burke more
seriously, and consider the possibility that birds evolved from protodinosaurs
or basal theropods, rather than from derived theropods. In doing so he exposed
his lack of knowledge as to why many of us do not take the embryological data
seriously. First, there is no technology (molecular or genetic) or methodology
by which bird digits can be reliably counted at this time. It is all based on
assumptions and inferences of a highly dubious nature. Second, the
osteological evidence that Archaeopteryx is an avetheropod closely related to
dromaeosaurs is massive

 (down to fine details of the occiput and pelvis). So much so that it
overwhelms the very weak embrylogical data.  

GSPaul