It's a fascinating discussion, and has a lot of the same arguments that the Archaeological communities are making. Artists are merely reflecting on a lot of these concepts. But art is art though, and I just love seeing the variety of interpretations of extinct species. ^__^

I like various interpretations as well, like what you'll find on http://dino.lm.com/ , and Syrinoth is open to the discussions and made some good points, while some others are overreacting.

Paleontological communities have their overreacting dudes also, like Stephan Pickering or JP D'Amour. Or dead horses theories a la Feduccia.
Well, when I have time I'll prepare a reply with some links.

Just, I don't think some simplistic replies are well fit to explain observations on fossils, and statements like "Archaeopteryx is a hoax" is nothing but reject of scientific evidence - and here I don't even talk about artwork.

dinosuar gallery regected me 3 times.

Reading the debate in the other journal, besides making me appreciate I was not involved in it, brought to mind the 1960 version of The Lost World with its lizards with glued-on horns and such. Just insofar as inaccuracy was concerned.

Well, historical influence: http://www.antoranz.net/CURIOSA/ZBI.....anodon-scu.jpg

can'tnthey test rock and fossil bone? or is this that the feathers were etched in?

I hate to saythis but i tought of making my own dino-bird fossil with clay.

Yes, they can test and analyze the fossil, to see if the feathers imprits are made of mineral coming from the rocks around when the fossil could be suspect, but paleontologists know what they find in the layers of mudstones of the quarry.

Personally, I belive that feathers have evolved from scales, so I think that would be possible..

That's very probably how certain scales turned into very primitive feathers, and evolution went on.

Still, birds have feathers and scales (feet). Phylogenically, birds are reptiles BTW.

proves the point :B *demented frolicing*