10 Quotes by Alan Feduccia

On the contrary, there is a considerable body of evidence that these fossil traces, known as 'dino-fuzz', have nothing to do with bird feathers... I, and many others, do not find any credible evidence that those structures represent protofeathers.

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.

Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird.

Instead of regarding birds as deriving from dinosaurs, Scansoriopteryx reinstates the validity of regarding them as a separate class uniquely avian and non-dinosaurian.

The question is, which three? In dinosaurs we know it's the thumb and the next two fingers,

The whole thing had become circular -- birds are dinosaurs, so whatever we find on dinosaurs that looks like a rudimentary feather has got to represent the origin of feathers.

There's been way too much hyperbole. To get back to any good science you've got to get away from that and get back to the bench, ... I think the field is ripe for some young scientist who doesn't have any cemented views to come in and look at this and paint it with a brand-new brush.

The age dates for these things are still unresolved, ... We need to back up and take a closer look at these things before drawing any final conclusions.

The fiber-collagen meshwork looked virtually identical to these so-called 'proto-feathers' found in the Chinese dinosaurs.