New Sibarian Ornithopod thats FEATHERD: Kulindadromeus

[Takama]

Scales And Feathers are present on this one

http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/jul/24/kulindadromeus-feathers-dinosaur-birds-evolution-siberia-russia?CMP=twt_gu

[HD-man]

Scales And Feathers are present on this one

http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/jul/24/kulindadromeus-feathers-dinosaur-birds-evolution-siberia-russia?CMP=twt_gu

Scales & feather-like structures. To quote Hone, "It cannot be said right now that any of the various filaments seen in Kulindadromeus are genuinely feathers in the sense that they share a single evolutionary origin back at the very origin of the dinosaurs and before the ornithischians split from the theropods and sauropodomorphs."

[Trisdino]

Is this proof? No, is this very, very good evidence? Of course.


We have found feather structures all throughout theropoda, and in several places in ornithischia, both of which get increasingly primitive and similar the further back in time we go. This, combined with the pycnofibres on pterosaurs, which look quite similar to protofuzz, give us a pretty darn good image. No, it is not 100%, but it is certainly more plausible then convergent evolution in this scale. To put this in perspective, saying that they do not share a single origin, would be like saying that fur evolved three times on closely related species, yet with no relation to each other, within the last 150 million years. It is a ridiculous notion.

[Paleogene Pals]

Intriguing evidence. However, only time will tell. My understanding is that these are filaments, featherlike-structures. But, these pesky things, I think, are going to start popping up in all sorts of dinos, and I can't wait to see how this is going to change science's image of these critters. I'm already on board the feather train.

[Balaur]

Intriguing evidence. However, only time will tell. My understanding is that these are filaments, featherlike-structures. But, these pesky things, I think, are going to start popping up in all sorts of dinos, and I can't wait to see how this is going to change science's image of these critters. I'm already on board the feather train.

Can I climb aboard? I'm in!

[Yutyrannus]

Intriguing evidence. However, only time will tell. My understanding is that these are filaments, featherlike-structures. But, these pesky things, I think, are going to start popping up in all sorts of dinos, and I can't wait to see how this is going to change science's image of these critters. I'm already on board the feather train.

Can I climb aboard? I'm in!

Me too !

[Manatee]

Intriguing evidence. However, only time will tell. My understanding is that these are filaments, featherlike-structures. But, these pesky things, I think, are going to start popping up in all sorts of dinos, and I can't wait to see how this is going to change science's image of these critters. I'm already on board the feather train.

I boarded the feather train a long time ago. In the end, I let scientific discoveries guide my thoughts on feathers and I don't get too attached to anything. There could always be a new development to contradict my own, and indeed the scientific community's, beliefs on topics like this one.

[Paleogene Pals]

Fifty, sixty years ago, people laughed at the concept of plate tectonics. Now, it is a central concept in geology. Let evidence speak for itself.

[HD-man]

Jura's "New Siberian ornithischian and the (over) feathering of dinosaurs...again" article is especially relevant to this thread: http://reptilis.net/2014/07/31/new-siberian-ornithischian-and-the-over-feathering-of-dinosaurs-again/comment-page-1/#comment-70120

[amanda]

Jura's "New Siberian ornithischian and the (over) feathering of dinosaurs...again" article is especially relevant to this thread: http://reptilis.net/2014/07/31/new-siberian-ornithischian-and-the-over-feathering-of-dinosaurs-again/comment-page-1/#comment-70120

So not "feathers", but rather a bristle-like structure previously unknown appearing more like a "fraying: or outgrowths extending from the scale tips. If true I'd say that does not sound vaguely feather like. Odd, yes. Something not seen before. But it is way too soon to jump onto any bandwagon or train either way. We apparently have no good pics of the structures or specimens, and they do not seem to have been widely examined. IF this article is correct, then the circumstances surrunding the find are suspicious? Not the rock solid vehicle to base a revision of what was or was not feathered on. At least not for me. I just prefer more caution than jumping in is all.

[stargatedalek]

well that depends how you define feather, these were not pennaceous feathers, (I would never expect to find pennaceous feathers outside of theropods), but they probably share a common ancestor with them, such ancestral integument could even predate dinosaurs and reach back to a common ancestor with pterosaurs

[Dinoguy2]

Jura's "New Siberian ornithischian and the (over) feathering of dinosaurs...again" article is especially relevant to this thread: http://reptilis.net/2014/07/31/new-siberian-ornithischian-and-the-over-feathering-of-dinosaurs-again/comment-page-1/#comment-70120

No surprise there, Jura's always been notoriously anti feather and cites some genetic evidence with very questionable application to more primitive members of modern lineages.

[amanda]

But that is not my point, I am interested in the actual description of the "feathers", which do not sound like such. They may resemble feathers/bristles visually, but it sounds as if something even weirder than that may have been going on, at least here. The scales are being described by the team as looking elongated and then "frayed" at some tips. Surely feather like structures are not growing off of the actual scale structure? So this is different. And interesting, dontchya think? We really need the team to present better pics, and maybe a nice illustration or two of what they think they are seeing.

[stargatedalek]

again that depends how you define "feather"

and yes they would be, thats what feathers are, modified scales

[Dinoguy2]

But that is not my point, I am interested in the actual description of the "feathers", which do not sound like such. They may resemble feathers/bristles visually, but it sounds as if something even weirder than that may have been going on, at least here. The scales are being described by the team as looking elongated and then "frayed" at some tips. Surely feather like structures are not growing off of the actual scale structure? So this is different. And interesting, dontchya think? We really need the team to present better pics, and maybe a nice illustration or two of what they think they are seeing.

I'd be cautious about the unified base thing. This is how the feathers of Epidexipteryx were described too. But taphonomic studies of modern bird specimens showed that this effect can be exactly reproduced in birds when flattened (goo from the body mats down and merges the proximal portions of normal body feathers).

Very important for people to remember that well preserved fossils are not snapshots of the past. They're crushed, squished, soaked, dessicated, and mangled animal carcasses that have gone through various amounts of rotting and decomposition before getting fossilized. Taphonomy is a newfield, but it's incredibly important to understand what changes can happen to these kinds of structures during rotting and burial.

I'm not saying these are modern feathers deformed post mortem, but we can't assume what we see in the rock is how they looked in life.

"Surely feather like structures are not growing out of the scale structure?" This is exactly what is seen on the feet of some modern birds e.g. Certain breeds of chicken!

[amanda]

I am always cautious. I am not advocating one way or another. It is impossible to really know without a set of good, detailed photos of the impressions, which is apparently not an option. I do not jump in and say "so..no feathers"...I do not jump in and say..."feather them all". Merely that this is an interesting find that shows a lot of potential weirdness and demands better pictures and descriptions than what is available. If the origins of the fossil indeed turns out to be dubious and murky, then ultra boo!! for mucking up a very important puzzle piece.

[HD-man]

No surprise there, Jura's always been notoriously anti feather and cites some genetic evidence with very questionable application to more primitive members of modern lineages.

No offense, but that's an overgeneralization if I've ever seen 1. Based on what I've read, Jura isn't "anti feather", but anti "over feathering". Big difference.

and yes they would be, thats what feathers are, modified scales

Actually, to quote Naish ( http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/05/07/thor-hanson-feathers-review/ ), "the idea alluded to at the end about feathers being modified scales has been very much superseded. The idea that scales might have split during evolution, eventually forming flat, vaned feathers that functioned as heat shields, was mooted during the 1970s by Philip Regal. It doesn't work because feathers and scales are not homologous: they're formed from different kinds of keratin, and feathers appear to be evolutionary novelties – new structures that did not develop from scales. It has been hypothesised that the earliest feathers – 'stage 1 feathers', if you will – were simple filaments, and that incremental, increasingly complex branching of this structure led to the diversity of later feather stages (Prum & Brush 2002, 2003)."

"Surely feather like structures are not growing out of the scale structure?" This is exactly what is seen on the feet of some modern birds e.g. Certain breeds of chicken!

The issue of feathered feet has already been covered several times (E.g. See "The feather-scale dichotomy": http://reptilis.net/2012/07/23/feathers-on-the-big-feathers-on-the-small-but-feathers-for-dinosaurs-one-and-all/ ).

I am always cautious. I am not advocating one way or another. It is impossible to really know without a set of good, detailed photos of the impressions, which is apparently not an option. I do not jump in and say "so..no feathers"...I do not jump in and say..."feather them all". Merely that this is an interesting find that shows a lot of potential weirdness and demands better pictures and descriptions than what is available. If the origins of the fossil indeed turns out to be dubious and murky, then ultra boo!! for mucking up a very important puzzle piece.

This.