Giant New Four-winged Maniraptoran

[HD-man]

@ I used parenthesis on "primary" for a reason, that being by primary I was referring to "large feathers that look like wings" not necessarily asymmetrical feathers

I was referring to asymmetrical feathers. My bad if I caused any confusion.

[stargatedalek]

I figured you were, and I was thinking I hadn't been clear enough


@Balaur it is a very interesting idea, just I don't see it as plausible
that sort of scenario is not unheard of in arthropods

[Yutyrannus]

Has anyone seen this yet?
http://ewilloughby.deviantart.com/art/Changyuraptor-469433992

[Takama]

That's a Excellent Drawing.   Reminds me of a real Bird of Prey.

[Dinoguy2]

Microraptor zhaoianus definitely had hind wings, even if you hunk M. gui and/or C. pauli are distinct. The specimen used to determine the color (BMNHC PH881) is most definitely the M. zhaoianus "morph" whatever that means (there's really no differences between zhaoianus and gui other than zhaoianus is smaller, has a relatively bigger head compared to the body, and lacks an ossified sternum, all of which are almost certainly age-related features). I can't find any images of it online, as with most described specimens, there's only endless pics of the M. gui type and a few low-res pics of the M. zhaoianus holotype, plus some dodgy pics of undescribed fossils in random Chinese museums that look like either casts or fakes...

Preservation matters. A lot. The holotype of Anchiornis was a nearly complete specimen that preserved what looked like short down. Some specimens of Anchiornis and Microraptor whatever are complete and articulated and preserve no feathers at all. Some specimens of each are complete, articulated, and preserve full or partial feathering in various places and various levels of detail. Some specimens are NOT articulated but DO preserve relatively good feathering!

Examples: The "bird eating specimen" of M. gui, VPP V17972 is complete and articulated including stomach contents. Only very faint traces of body feathers are present. Obviously we know M. gui had a lot more feathers than that, it's just that for whatever reason, they weren't preserved in this specimen, despite and excellently preserved skeleton. And here's a specimen of Anchiornis huxleyi preserving only faint down: https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/multiple-specimens/

This should tell any reasonable person that it is not possible to look at single specimens and think we know what the feathers were like. Heck we just found out a lot more about the feathers of Archaeopteryx itself thanks to the 11th specimen, which has better feather preservation than any others.

EDIT: This appears to be a close-up of the hind limb of the M. zhaoianus specimen described with color, BMNHC PH881: http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g62/TigerQuoll/dinosaur/preserved-microraptor-feathers.jpg
EDIT2: And here's a full pic! http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6073/1215/F1.large.jpg

[HD-man]

Microraptor zhaoianus definitely had hind wings, even if you hunk M. gui and/or C. pauli are distinct. The specimen used to determine the color (BMNHC PH881) is most definitely the M. zhaoianus "morph" whatever that means

Sources? Last I checked, BMNHC PH881 has been referred to either M. gui ( http://hk.science.museum/ms/lgd/images/exhibits/201311_large/19.jpg ) or no particular species ( http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130918/ncomms3489/fig_tab/ncomms3489_F5.html ).

(there's really no differences between zhaoianus and gui other than zhaoianus is smaller, has a relatively bigger head compared to the body, and lacks an ossified sternum, all of which are almost certainly age-related features).

Actually, there are (See the Ellis & Xing et al. quotes), hence why most consider them separate species.

This should tell any reasonable person that it is not possible to look at single specimens and think we know what the feathers were like. Heck we just found out a lot more about the feathers of Archaeopteryx itself thanks to the 11th specimen, which has better feather preservation than any others.

Archaeopteryx isn't the best example, given that the Berlin specimen did preserve leg feathers (albeit not as well as the larger/stronger wing & tail feathers: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2014/07/original-archaeopteryx.jpg ). That does remind me of why the preservation excuse doesn't work here: When a decent fossil of a dino with flight feathers preserves feathers, the larger/stronger flight feathers are more likely to be preserved than the smaller/weaker non-flight feathers; Therefore, a decent dino fossil that preserves 1) non-flight feathers near the arms & legs, & 2) no flight feathers anywhere probably does so b/c the dino lacked flight feathers.

Quoting Ellis ( http://www.amazon.com/No-Turning-Back-Extinction-Scenario-ebook/dp/B00920K88S/ref=la_B000APPWSK_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405978838&sr=1-17 ):

It was placed in the genus Microraptor because it was similar in almost every respect to M. zhaoianus, except for the "prominent biceps tubercularity on radius, much shorter manual digit I, strongly curved pubis, and bowed tibia." And its feathered hind limbs.

Quoting Xing et al. (See "Description": http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140313585351282162.pdf ):

Although some authors regard the Microraptor species M. gui and Microraptor zhaoianus to be synonymous (Turner et al. 2012), QM V1002 is here referred to the species M. gui and is distinguishable from M. zhaoianus based on the presence of a biceps tubercle near the proximal end of the radius (visible on the left radius, but, because of how the specimen lays, not the right), a strongly curved pubis, metacarpal I and manual phalanx I-1 together much shorter in proximodistal length than metacarpal II, and manual ungual II subequal to man- ual ungual I in size (manual ungual I of M. gui is nearly half the relative size of manual ungual I in M. zhaoianus; Xu et al. 2003).

[Dinoguy2]

Microraptor zhaoianus definitely had hind wings, even if you hunk M. gui and/or C. pauli are distinct. The specimen used to determine the color (BMNHC PH881) is most definitely the M. zhaoianus "morph" whatever that means

Sources? Last I checked, BMNHC PH881 has been referred to either M. gui ( http://hk.science.museum/ms/lgd/images/exhibits/201311_large/19.jpg ) or no particular species ( http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130918/ncomms3489/fig_tab/ncomms3489_F5.html ).

(there's really no differences between zhaoianus and gui other than zhaoianus is smaller, has a relatively bigger head compared to the body, and lacks an ossified sternum, all of which are almost certainly age-related features).

Actually, there are (See the Ellis & Xing et al. quotes), hence why most consider them separate species.

This should tell any reasonable person that it is not possible to look at single specimens and think we know what the feathers were like. Heck we just found out a lot more about the feathers of Archaeopteryx itself thanks to the 11th specimen, which has better feather preservation than any others.

Archaeopteryx isn't the best example, given that the Berlin specimen did preserve leg feathers (albeit not as well as the larger/stronger wing & tail feathers: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2014/07/original-archaeopteryx.jpg ). That does remind me of why the preservation excuse doesn't work here: When a decent fossil of a dino with flight feathers preserves feathers, the larger/stronger flight feathers are more likely to be preserved than the smaller/weaker non-flight feathers; Therefore, a decent dino fossil that preserves 1) non-flight feathers near the arms & legs, & 2) no flight feathers anywhere probably does so b/c the dino lacked flight feathers.

Quoting Ellis ( http://www.amazon.com/No-Turning-Back-Extinction-Scenario-ebook/dp/B00920K88S/ref=la_B000APPWSK_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405978838&sr=1-17 ):

It was placed in the genus Microraptor because it was similar in almost every respect to M. zhaoianus, except for the "prominent biceps tubercularity on radius, much shorter manual digit I, strongly curved pubis, and bowed tibia." And its feathered hind limbs.

Quoting Xing et al. (See "Description": http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140313585351282162.pdf ):

Although some authors regard the Microraptor species M. gui and Microraptor zhaoianus to be synonymous (Turner et al. 2012), QM V1002 is here referred to the species M. gui and is distinguishable from M. zhaoianus based on the presence of a biceps tubercle near the proximal end of the radius (visible on the left radius, but, because of how the specimen lays, not the right), a strongly curved pubis, metacarpal I and manual phalanx I-1 together much shorter in proximodistal length than metacarpal II, and manual ungual II subequal to man- ual ungual I in size (manual ungual I of M. gui is nearly half the relative size of manual ungual I in M. zhaoianus; Xu et al. 2003).

Many of the features listed in those quotes support referral of the color specimen to Zhaoianus rather than gui. Either way, even if the color specimen is gui (I would never take a museum slabel as evidence over the published description), the varying preservation and overall poor preservation of all solidly referred zhaoianus specimens cannot be used as evidence against hind wings. No other zhaoianus specimens even preserve much in the way if ither feathers, either, only faint traces in the holotype and the cags specimens.

Here's the relevant article describing BMNHC PH881:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6073/1215/suppl/DC1

Microraptor as used in the present paper refers to a single species, Microraptor zhaoianus pending a detailed revision of the taxon taking into account potential ontogenetic data (e.g., from histological data). The holotype specimen of Microraptor zhaoianus (IVPP 12330), also from the Jiufotang Formation of western Liaoning, was first reported by (39). However, a second species, Microraptor gui, was later recognized (9). More recently, this species has been proposed be a synonym of the earlier named Microraptor zhaoianus (40), and a single Microraptor zhaoianus terminal has been used in most recent analyses of paravian relationships (e.g., 10, 11). but further revision may be undertaken in the future. More recent analyses with increased taxonomic sampling suggest Microraptor is one of several taxa basal within Dromaeosauridae but that it may not be the most basal part of that clade (e.g., 10, 11).
We provide a description of the specimen here to support our taxonomic assessment. Comparisons were made with previously reported specimens. Xu et al. (39) included a
description of the Microraptor zhaoianus holotype, but this specimen lacks most of the skull, manus, as well as parts of the pectoral girdle. Hwang et al. (41) described two other specimens of Microraptor (CAGS 20-7-004 and CAGS 20-8-001) giving a detailed description of the lower jaw and the postcranial skeleton. Further details of the anatomy of Microraptor were given at the description of the holotype of Microraptor gui and specimens referred to Microraptor sp. (9). In size the new specimen (Table S3) is much closer to the Microraptor zhaoianus holotype (39).

While the authors don't specifically address this, the hi-res photos in the paper are enough to refer this specimen to M. zhaoianus based on the (possibly flawed) criteria of Xing et al. It lacks a biceps tubercle (unlike go which has one), has a straight pubis (unlike curved pubis in gui), digit I not visible in this specimen based on photos (unable to evaluate if it's shorter than metacarpal II as in gui and/or has a smaller claw I than claw II). The specimen lacks an ossified sternum and bowed tibia, both of which have been considered a key character of M. gui by others (incl. O'Connor et al. 2011, desc. of the bird-eater specimen). Note that all of these supposed differences in features are very plausibly size-related...

Just full disclosure, I think it's plausible that gui and zhaoianus are distinct, and I even kept them distinct in my own book. But I don't think the case is particularly solid. If M. gui is distinct, BMNHC PH881 is not an example of one, as it lacks every single supposedly distinguishing feature of gui and matches zhaoianus in every visible way. I don't know where Elis is getting his info from, but I'm not aware of any recent formal diagnosis that used the presence of hind wings to characterize M. gui.

Archaeopteryx isn't the best example, given that the Berlin specimen did preserve leg feathers (albeit not as well as the larger/stronger wing & tail feathers: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2014/07/original-archaeopteryx.jpg ). That does remind me of why the preservation excuse doesn't work here: When a decent fossil of a dino with flight feathers preserves feathers, the larger/stronger flight feathers are more likely to be preserved than the smaller/weaker non-flight feathers; Therefore, a decent dino fossil that preserves 1) non-flight feathers near the arms & legs, & 2) no flight feathers anywhere probably does so b/c the dino lacked flight feathers.

I'm sorry but this is simply wrong. As I noted above, we have fully articulated specimens of species known to have flight feathers that lack them. This inuclides M. gui (bird-eater specimen IVPP V17972 lacks flight feathers but preserves "down"), Anchiornis (the holotype preserves down but no flight feathers seen in many other specimens), and the Solnhofen specimen of Archaeopteryx, just to list a few examples that are known from large sample sizes.

[HD-man]

Here's the relevant article describing BMNHC PH881:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6073/1215/suppl/DC1

Just full disclosure, I think it's plausible that gui and zhaoianus are distinct, and I even kept them distinct in my own book. But I don't think the case is particularly solid. If M. gui is distinct, BMNHC PH881 is not an example of one, as it lacks every single supposedly distinguishing feature of gui and matches zhaoianus in every visible way. I don't know where Elis is getting his info from, but I'm not aware of any recent formal diagnosis that used the presence of hind wings to characterize M. gui.

I'll admit that I can't argue technical stuff like you can b/c, as mentioned elsewhere, I'm just a non-expert dino fan. I'll also admit that the Microraptor species situation (for lack of a better phrase) is probably more complicated than I originally thought. However, until we either 1) find M. zhaoianus fossils that preserve M. gui-like hind wings, or 2) know for sure that the Microraptor species are synonymous, we can't say that M. zhaoianus "definitely had hind wings". That'd be like arguing that every species in the Panthera genus had a mane based on P. leo (if we only knew of Panthera from fossils & P. leo fossils preserved manes).

I'm sorry but this is simply wrong. As I noted above, we have fully articulated specimens of species known to have flight feathers that lack them. This inuclides M. gui (bird-eater specimen IVPP V17972 lacks flight feathers but preserves "down"), Anchiornis (the holotype preserves down but no flight feathers seen in many other specimens), and the Solnhofen specimen of Archaeopteryx, just to list a few examples that are known from large sample sizes.

I was speaking generally after consulting with my sources.* There are exceptions, but they're still exceptions. In any case, some of your examples are not-so-good: In reference to the Anchiornis holotype, "extremely faint carbonized feather impressions are pre- served...but their detailed structure is not clear" (I.e. We don't know what feather types they are: http://www.davehone.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Xu-et-al-2009-Anchiornis.pdf ); In reference to the Solnhofen specimen, "traces of feathers of the left wing" (I.e. Flight feathers: http://books.google.com/books?id=DMjD962DhssC&pg=PA44&dq=%22traces+of+feathers+of%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-ILRU6bXJsuiyAT674KoDg&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22traces%20of%20feathers%20of%22&f=false ) are preserved. I'm also unsure about IVPP V17972, given that it preserves some body feathers & NO limb feathers (flight or non-flight), while the M. zhaoianus holotype preserves near-complete sets of limbs with some non-flight feathers & NO flight feathers.

*E.g. To quote Hone et al. ( http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009223 ), "Indeed the lack of disturbance of non-primary and secondary feathers (such as those around the head and chest) indicate that the specimen was buried rapidly and suffered no great disturbance as these are normally the first to be lost during decomposition [37]."

[Dinoguy2]

Here's the relevant article describing BMNHC PH881:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6073/1215/suppl/DC1

Just full disclosure, I think it's plausible that gui and zhaoianus are distinct, and I even kept them distinct in my own book. But I don't think the case is particularly solid. If M. gui is distinct, BMNHC PH881 is not an example of one, as it lacks every single supposedly distinguishing feature of gui and matches zhaoianus in every visible way. I don't know where Elis is getting his info from, but I'm not aware of any recent formal diagnosis that used the presence of hind wings to characterize M. gui.

I'll admit that I can't argue technical stuff like you can b/c, as mentioned elsewhere, I'm just a non-expert dino fan. I'll also admit that the Microraptor species situation (for lack of a better phrase) is probably more complicated than I originally thought. However, until we either 1) find M. zhaoianus fossils that preserve M. gui-like hind wings, or 2) know for sure that the Microraptor species are synonymous, we can't say that M. zhaoianus "definitely had hind wings". That'd be like arguing that every species in the Panthera genus had a mane based on P. leo (if we only knew of Panthera from fossils & P. leo fossils preserved manes).

Ok, here's a question for you. If we did find a specimen of zhaoianus with hind wings, how would we know if it was zhaoianus and not gui?

The two supposed species do differ in the skeleton. The list of skeleton features that makes them different is called a diagnosis. The color specimen matches the diagnosis of zhaoianus not gui. The authors of the paper didn't explicitly state this because they think those are the same species, but if you think the species are different, you have to admit this is a zhaoianus specimen with hind wings.

So, we should obviously not assume tigers had manes just because lions did. But if we found the skeleton of a cat that had a mane, but the skeletal details matched tigers rather than lions, we should not call it a lion simply due to the mane, we'd be forced to conclude both lions and tigers had manes. Asking "does species x have a mane like species y?" but then calling every specimen with a mane "species x" regardless of other features is circular logic.

Side note, one of the reasons I think they might be real species is because even the feathers of zhaoianus seem to differ in some ways from gui. The color specimen of zhaoianus famously has to long feathers at the tail tip that stick out past the rest, and no gui specimens show this feature. Because only the specimen that matches the zhaoianus holotype skeleton have these long tail tips, and no specimens matching the gui skeletal features do, we might be able to add long tail tip feathers to the differences between zhaoianus and gui.

The difference between "feathers on the arm and we're not sure what kind cause they're poorly preserved" and "filamentous feathers on the arm" is simply an issue of overconfidence in interpretation. Zhaoianus was only the second feathered dromaeosaur fossil ever found, and the first from a complete skeleton. We had no idea back then to even expect the possibility if flight feathers, rather than Sinosauropteryx like filaments. If the Anchiornis holotype had been described in 2000 instead of 2009 they probably would have said the same thing. It's just that by then, people knew to be more cautious in interpreting these things. I'm sure if you ask these scientists on Facebook they'd tell you the same thing.