Unpublished notion, we hardly knew ye [was: Re: The Size of Birds]

[znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU]

>Hmph.  Yeah, like the spines on Longisquama back are palm fronds?  I
>painted a pretty little Longisquama with a naked back because of that
>little nugget of wisdom.  :)

        I am afraid I am responsible for this "little nugget," a
possibility I aired to the Oregon crew at SVP '99, which was later
mentioned by Peter B. (unattributed, sulk sulk) on this list. I feel
justified in claiming rights to the notion, if only because I had to
endure a 45-minute private harangue from Hillenius for my efforts.
        
        I do not know why you are so sullen about the idea, frankly I
still think it is a possibility, one which has not been adequately
explored by anyone. Maybe someday I'll grab a paleobotanist and we'll sit
down and examine it.

        However, and here's the lesson for everyone. Note that neither
Pete nor I have EVER (publically) stated that the structures on the back
of Longisquama ARE plant material, nor that there is any EVIDENCE that
they are. Nothing (to my knowledge) has ever been published on the
subject, and no one (again, AFAIK) is even examining the question. It
seems that some workers do not think it is even worth considering.

        MORAL: Take everything you hear with a grain of salt, especially
at a meeting. Sadly, the trend in vertebrate paleontology is toward more
abstracts and less work, but even an abstract is a terrible excuse for
science. You are far better off... (Dr. Holtz, everyone, all together
now...) waiting for the paper.

        That said, I would really like to see your painting! I don't think
I've ever inspired art before. Kinda makes me feel all giddy and stuff.

        Anyway, I didn't want to hurt your feelings or anything, I just
thought clarification was in order. Good luck in your work, and I hope you
keep your painting as is... maybe someone will want it for a paper some
day... ;)

        Wagner