Re: News: New feathered dinosaur specimen strengthens dino-bird link.

In message <RcGdnZTgXte53SDXRVn_vwA@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Harshman <jharshman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Ye Old One wrote:
Sep 24, 2009 05:45 PM in Biology
New feathered dinosaur specimen strengthens dino-bird link
By Katherine Harmon in 60-Second Science Blog http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=ne
w-feathered-dinosaur-specimen-wea-2009-09-24

First off: yawn. Might as well say "New pregnancy test strengthens sex-baby link".

Nonavian dinosaurs are long extinct, but paleontological thinking
about them, especially the dino–bird specimens, clearly continues to
evolve long after they are discovered. For instance, the Anchiornis
huxleyi, a small, feathered dinosaur, was described last December and
assumed to be a transitional species that existed between dinosaurs
and birds. But new evidence—and a much better specimen—has revealed
that this ambiguous animal actually belongs to the dinosaur clan.

Urk.

Described from a partial specimen in the Chinese Science Bulletin, A.
huxleyi was proposed to be an "intermediate…between nonavian and avian
dinosaurs," wrote Xing Xu, a paleontologist at the Institute of
Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology at the Chinese Academy
of Sciences in Beijing, and his colleagues. But as a dinosaur—now
proposed to be a troodontid, a birdlike group of theropods—it sets the
clock back for bird evolution.

Also urk.

The dinosaur–bird transition has been the subject of debate for more
than a century, and some researchers are still arguing that other
birdlike dinos are too recent to be the ancestors of birds. The
quandary, known in the paleontology field as the temporal paradox,

It's not a quandary to anyone except Alan Feduccia and a couple of his buddies. All other paleontologists realize how silly it is. It is, in fact, the exact equivalent of "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

has
been dealt another blow by the reassessment of the A. huxleyi, which
is dated to about 155 million years old—about 30 million years before
the feathered dinosaur Microraptor and about five million years before
the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx. This earlier date for the
emergence of feathered dinosaurs undermines claims that birds lacked
enough time to evolve from dinosaurs.

No it doesn't, because those claims were never credible. I recommend, as a corrective to any readers who wonder about this, the following paper: Brochu, C. A., and M. A. Norell. 2000. Temporal congruence and the origin of birds. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20:197-200.

You will note that it's 9 years old, and it shouldn't have been necessary even then.

In addition, the research "sheds new light on the early evolution of
feathers and demonstrates the complex distribution of
skeletal…features close to the dinosaur–bird transition," the paper
authors write [pdf] in the letters section of Nature this week
(Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group).

That's press release hype. A feathered troodont sheds no light that the previous feathered dromaeosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, and compsognathids didn't shed already.

Adding lift to the theory that these animals once flew or glided with
all four wings, the A. huxleyi appears to have had several contour
features (aka pennaceous feathers)—found on modern birds—on its hind
legs. The authors of the most recent paper, to which Xu also
contributed, note that this supports the idea that feathers developed
first on the tail region of dinosaurs and spread later to the
forewings, before disappearing from the legs of contemporary birds.

Conceivably this is actually something new. Depends on what the Nature paper really says, and whether this troodont has flight feathers on its forelimbs too.

Both specimens were unearthed in the Tiaojishan Formation in Liaoning,
China. The small dinosaur originally described in the Chinese Science
Bulletin measures about 34 inches long and weighed about 110 grams.
Although it might have played a part in ushering in a brave new world
for birds, the A. huxleyi is named not for the famed science-fiction
author, but for Thomas Henry Huxley, an early advocate of evolution
and one of the first people to suggest that birds may indeed be
descended from dinosaurs.

Well, duh. And Aldous Huxley was a science fiction author? For one book?

Judging by the synopsis at WikiPedia "Ape and Essence" might also be classified as slipstream dystopian SF.
--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sean Pitman and nested hierarchy
    ... not evolve from dinosaurs because true birds are found in the fossil ... birds are 'living dinosaurs'". ... article think has feathers. ... That is in fact what defines a nested hierarchy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sean Pitman and nested hierarchy
    ... not evolve from dinosaurs because true birds are found in the fossil ... birds are 'living dinosaurs'". ... article think has feathers. ... There are quite a number of mainstream scientists who think that these ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How did a bird evolve?
    ... First you refused to believe that robins were dinosaurs; ... John Ostrom argued that the birds evolved from theropod ... features (a wishbone, flight feathers, wings, a partially reversed ... Archaeopteryx is probably close to the ancestry of modern birds - it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: News: New feathered dinosaur specimen strengthens dino-bird link.
    ... assumed to be a transitional species that existed between dinosaurs ... birdlike dinos are too recent to be the ancestors of birds. ... that of Microraptor and Archaeopteryx (the longest feathers originate ... The small dinosaur originally described in the Chinese Science ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Chinese feathered dinosaurs, where are the skeptics?
    ... dinosaur fossils from China. ... View more information and resources on Chinese Dinosaurs ... The feathers? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading