"Fossil Preservation" (Sent earlier but returned -- maybe I mis-typed address -- so just in case...)

["Ray Stanford" <starsong@prodigy.net>]

SENT EARLIER, BUT IT WAS RETURNED, FOR A REASON MY SYSTEM DOES NOT FULLY
CLARIFY, forgive duplication in case you got it anyway (My part somewhat
edited upon re-reading it!):


>Jaime A. Headden sent:
>
>
>>What is the process for the preservation of integument as Archie's  and
>>Protarchaeopteryx feathers and Sinosauropteryx's protofeathers, and even
>>all the others with such preservation? They all, apparently, came from
>>lagoon deposits except the Yixian specimens.
>
>Actually, Archie feathers were NOT PRESERVED, only the imprints made by
>their initial presence and natural in-fill as a cast (of where they lay)
>were.  Also, the bodies of Archies lay in a MARINE (salt water)
environment.
>
>    By important contrast, the Sinosauropteryxs' bodies are from a
>FRESHWATER environment, and a form of PARTIAL PRESERVATION of certain
>structures has occurred, as evidenced, for example, in the black (carbon
after organic
>de-composition) parts.  Aside from the FRESH water (which possibly helped
>preservation only in a secondary way), a strong factor toward the partial
>preservation was likely both the chemical and the physical structure of the
>very micro-particulate VOLCANIC ASH (primarily) that
>surrounded the bodies.
>
>    So, we have TWO DISTINCT TYPES of fossil record of the existence of
>feathers, fibers, proto-feathers, or whatever.
>
>    As to Skippy, "AMEN!" on that name.  But Tom Holtz should get himself
an
>agent quickly and secure a whopper therapod-research-financing contract
with
>the peanut butter company!  [They'd "eat it with a spoon", sans bread!
>...and, after all, wasn't it a Skippy Peanut Butter diet that preserved
>Skippy's gut?!  ;-) ]
>
>
>