Talk:Scansoriopteryx

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

recent studies by professor Alan Feduccia suggest that the Scansoripteryx is not a dinosaur at all but a primitive type of bird. He suggests that birds are not descends of dinosaurs, but descendants of a different class of creatures like the Scansoripteryx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.251.129 (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're all familiar with Feduccia's insistence that birds are not dinosaurs.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lthough interpreted as feather shafts by Czerkas & Feduccia (2014), the strandlike markings on the fourth metacarpal of that specimen may be traces of scutate scales (Appendix S3.8). ... Morphology and distribution of scales, dermal ossifications, and other non-feather integumentary structures in non-avialan theropod dinosaurs Dinomarek (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

of Scansioropteryx (Fig. 2) may have been misinterpreted. From what I can tell the left ischium had shifted over the acetabulum and other pertinent post-acetabulum areas, obscuring the open acetabulum (which is plainly visible on the right side). This hypothesis assumes that both ischia were the same length as their posterior tips must meet. Dinomarek (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]