Bald dino casts doubt on feather theory
Fossil calls into question the purpose of the first feathers
Feathery dinosaurs might not have been as common as experts thought, according to researchers who analysed a fossil of a creature previously thought to have feathers, and found instead that it was bald.
Read the story here
Comments
I thank Katharine Sanderson for her own fair assessment of our results (Lingham-Soliar et al. 2007) and apologise for being unavoidably unavailable for her requests for my comments and take this opportunity to redress that.
Unwin in the words of Lady Gertrude (Hamlet), “doth protest too much, methinks” when he says "There's no need to panic…This doesn't in any way challenge the idea that dinosaurs had feathers and that dinosaurs gave rise to birds" despite our emphasis that “the wider question of whether or not birds originate from dinosaurs does not concern the present study”. It does, however, unhinge prima facie support for functional theories associated with protofeathers (e.g. Prum & Brush 2002;Xu et al. 2004; Norell & Xu 2005. Refs. in Lingham-Soliar et al. 2007)
The most parsimonious explanation is that the fibres were collagenous as with a similar assumption made by notable workers, e.g. Pabst on dolphins and Motta on sharks (refs. in Lingham-Soliar et al. 2007). Notwithstanding, as we indicate, the chemistry of the fibers is of secondary importance to the study.
As paleontologists, we work with many constraints re. material and the various kinds of technology it may or may not permit. Yet there is a danger to those who apply technology as a substitute for sound thought. Unwin’s salvo "It's almost dangerous to only look at one or two specimens," however, has the effect of shooting off his own foot, when put in the context of his (Unwin & Bakhurina 1994; ref. in Lingham-Soliar et al. 2007) new model of the pterosaur flight apparatus (based on soft-tissue and skeletal remains), not on three specimens (as in our paper) nor on his recommendation of a broad range of techniques, but on microscopic analysis of a single specimen of Sordes pilosus. It also endangers other related studies, similarly constrained (e.g. Chen et al. 1998; Currie & Chen 2001; Xu et al. 2001; Xu et al. 2004, Gohlich & Chiappe 2006; refs. in Lingham-Soliar et al. 2007).
Unwin’s comment “This result simply throws into doubt the first step in feather evolution” is a curious understatement since we all know how important that first step is in evolutionary biology. There no doubt will be some who will continue to believe in protofeathers in Sinosauropteryx for in the words of Dorothy Parker “You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks”.
Theagarten Lingham-Soliar
T. L-S
References.
Lingham-Soliar et. al. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0352 (2007).
Posted by: Theagarten Lingham-Soliar | May 30, 2007 06:45 AM