|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Sept 29, 2008 13:20:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 29, 2008 14:09:06 GMT
Really interesting...  |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 29, 2008 22:57:30 GMT
;D Does this mean there is going to be another war? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 29, 2008 23:09:00 GMT
;D Does this mean there is going to be another war? ;D Why? Did the ichthyosaurs have feathers? |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 29, 2008 23:59:58 GMT
;D Does this mean there is going to be another war? ;D Why? Did the ichthyosaurs have feathers? ;D No but a Dolphin buried for a year by Dr. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar showed feather patterns almost identical to the ones on the Chinese Feathered Dinosaurs. This was caused by degraded collagen fibers. Now some people are claiming something similar for soft tissue impressions of Icythyosaurs. Don't you feel they are in anyway similar? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 30, 2008 4:45:50 GMT
Why? Did the ichthyosaurs have feathers? ;D No but a Dolphin buried for a year by Dr. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar showed feather patterns almost identical to the ones on the Chinese Feathered Dinosaurs. This was caused by degraded collagen fibers. Now some people are claiming something similar for soft tissue impressions of Icythyosaurs. Don't you feel they are in anyway similar? ;D A) I don't feel when I am critically thinking; and B) No, I don't. I'm just curious--how does the pattern on a dolphin relate to a terrestrial reptile of any kind? And at what scale were the patterns similar? At the gross, macroscopic level, or at the SEM micro level? And most importantly, did you read the critique supplied by the author of the blog post? It looks to me like some people may be grasping a bit at straws. For those who don't want to bother, the text quoted below: I am convinced that these comparisons are completely erroneous and misleading. In ichthyosaurs the fibres can be seen to either overlay bone or clearly be deep within the skin (viz, medial to the external skin surface) (Lingham-Soliar 1999, 2001, pers. obs.). Furthermore, most ichthyosaur skin fibres look nothing like the structures seen on the theropods: the only ones that do are arranged in an orthogonal meshwork and are preserved as overlapping layers that, again, were clearly embedded within the dermis of the ichthyosaur (Lingham-Soliar 1999, 2001) [reconstruction of skin fibres as they were arranged in a live ichthyosaur shown here, from Lingham-Soliar (2001)]. The structures in theropods were clearly external to the dermis, and look the same as the fibre-like structures present in taxa that have indisputable vaned feathers (pers. obs.). Structurally the fibre meshworks of ichthyosaurs were interpreted by Lingham-Soliar & Reif (1998) and Lingham-Soliar (1999, 2001) as analogues of the cross-fibre arrays seen in sirenian, cetacean and shark skin. Such cross-fibre arrays appear to assist in keeping the skin of these swimming animals strong, flexible and smooth (and, incidentally, it would be bizarre to expect such skin fibre meshworks to be present in terrestrial vertebrates like dinosaurs). |
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 30, 2008 11:59:05 GMT
Structurally the fibre meshworks of ichthyosaurs were interpreted by Lingham-Soliar & Reif (1998) and Lingham-Soliar (1999, 2001) as analogues of the cross-fibre arrays seen in sirenian, cetacean and shark skin. Such cross-fibre arrays appear to assist in keeping the skin of these swimming animals strong, flexible and smooth (and, incidentally, it would be bizarre to expect such skin fibre meshworks to be present in terrestrial vertebrates like dinosaurs). [/i][/quote] So if you don't believe raptors had feathers, you better believe they were aquatic!  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 1, 2008 8:12:56 GMT
So if you don't believe raptors had feathers, you better believe they were aquatic! Swimming Raptors...Woo-ooh!! ;D X stoneage: They buried a dolphin just to prove a theory?!  Sick...  |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 4, 2008 22:28:37 GMT
;D No but a Dolphin buried for a year by Dr. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar showed feather patterns almost identical to the ones on the Chinese Feathered Dinosaurs. This was caused by degraded collagen fibers. Now some people are claiming something similar for soft tissue impressions of Icythyosaurs. Don't you feel they are in anyway similar? ;D A) I don't feel when I am critically thinking; and B) No, I don't. I'm just curious--how does the pattern on a dolphin relate to a terrestrial reptile of any kind? And at what scale were the patterns similar? At the gross, macroscopic level, or at the SEM micro level? And most importantly, did you read the critique supplied by the author of the blog post? It looks to me like some people may be grasping a bit at straws. For those who don't want to bother, the text quoted below: I am convinced that these comparisons are completely erroneous and misleading. In ichthyosaurs the fibres can be seen to either overlay bone or clearly be deep within the skin (viz, medial to the external skin surface) (Lingham-Soliar 1999, 2001, pers. obs.). Furthermore, most ichthyosaur skin fibres look nothing like the structures seen on the theropods: the only ones that do are arranged in an orthogonal meshwork and are preserved as overlapping layers that, again, were clearly embedded within the dermis of the ichthyosaur (Lingham-Soliar 1999, 2001) [reconstruction of skin fibres as they were arranged in a live ichthyosaur shown here, from Lingham-Soliar (2001)]. The structures in theropods were clearly external to the dermis, and look the same as the fibre-like structures present in taxa that have indisputable vaned feathers (pers. obs.). Structurally the fibre meshworks of ichthyosaurs were interpreted by Lingham-Soliar & Reif (1998) and Lingham-Soliar (1999, 2001) as analogues of the cross-fibre arrays seen in sirenian, cetacean and shark skin. Such cross-fibre arrays appear to assist in keeping the skin of these swimming animals strong, flexible and smooth (and, incidentally, it would be bizarre to expect such skin fibre meshworks to be present in terrestrial vertebrates like dinosaurs). I feel the similarity is that you have two different fossil impressions whose validity has been questioned. The conclusions or who is right or wrong doesn't have anything to do with it. |
|
