True or false -Derived ceratopsian quills Poll

[Dinoguy2]

I'll come back to some otherpoints later, but I wanted to say I was very much trying  not to be rude earlier. The fact is all dinosaurs have separate individual metatarsals, the exception being birds. Any that don't have been improperly restored by non experts. That includes museum mounts, especially those in China, where some entire displays have been "restored". There are photos on Wkipedia of fossil birds that are nearly 100% "restored" taken in museums. It is no garuntee of authenticity. Good museums will label the restored parts or casts in some way.ni don't mean pieced together from different specimens, I mean the bones are plater sculptures.

I wouldn't take a fossil sellers word for what's real and what isn't unless he is the one physically digging up amd prepping the specimen, like BHI does. Sine private collecting in Mongolia and China are illegal, and have been for the last 30 years, I'm guessing he didn't get the specimens himself.

There is a massive international black market for Asian fossils and many if not most are fake.mive personally seen many hyphalosaurus skeletons in reputable fossil shops and mineral shows that were simply bad sculptures. The owners didn't know they were fake or contraband.

Sorry but try showing that pic to some paleontologists on Twitter or Facebook for a second opinion, I'm pretty sure at least some of those elements are restored, and if you were told otherwise you've been taken for a ride. Hopefully I'm wrong and this is just some weird preservational thing!

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I'll come back to some otherpoints later, but I wanted to say I was very much trying  not to be rude earlier. The fact is all dinosaurs have separate individual metatarsals, the exception being birds. Any that don't have been improperly restored by non experts. That includes museum mounts, especially those in China, where some entire displays have been "restored". There are photos on Wkipedia of fossil birds that are nearly 100% "restored" taken in museums. It is no garuntee of authenticity. Good museums will label the restored parts or casts in some way.ni don't mean pieced together from different specimens, I mean the bones are plater sculptures.

I wouldn't take a fossil sellers word for what's real and what isn't unless he is the one physically digging up amd prepping the specimen, like BHI does. Sine private collecting in Mongolia and China are illegal, and have been for the last 30 years, I'm guessing he didn't get the specimens himself.

There is a massive international black market for Asian fossils and many if not most are fake.mive personally seen many hyphalosaurus skeletons in reputable fossil shops and mineral shows that were simply bad sculptures. The owners didn't know they were fake or contraband.

Sorry but try showing that pic to some paleontologists on Twitter or Facebook for a second opinion, I'm pretty sure at least some of those elements are restored, and if you were told otherwise you've been taken for a ride. Hopefully I'm wrong and this is just some weird preservational thing!

I did not take your comments as being rude, they were an observation based on your knowledge. I did not percieve them as being snarky so thanks for sharing them.I do think the upper portions of the feet look somewhat odd and have wondered myself, so I will inquire and verify. I do seem to remember the owner of the lab commenting to some nature about the ankle bones never preserving. Lets see where it goes, I will email him.
   The seller in question is not just any fossil dealer, it is Triassica, the largest commercial dealer in psittacosaurus skeletons in the world and the owner Mike Holmes has more credentials than I can begin to type here. He is highly reputable regarding fossils , dinosaurs and does his own restorations in his lab. I will email him your thoughts and perhaps I can get a response if the higher foot elements are restored.  Even failing that I am unsure how that would make the in situ specimens appear like mine...that seems an odd contention. I purposely posted a shot of the in situ specimen to demonstrate that even those within the matrix and clearly untouched resemble my own skeletons elements. I did cover that the specimen is a sub adult and that it its possible this might be problematic. ( I believe there is also evidence for a preservational bias against the ankle bones, and it might be those are what you are seeing and questioning and that may be the issue here, which I can determine through my seller)
   I do think the entire point wether the elements you are questioning are plaster or bone as I am contending is the number of digits, and that there are enough papers to underline and support that psittacosaurus did indeed have four digits per limb, with the hands having a fourth digit which was a vestigal thumb, with no claw or bone present. I believe the figures within the papers posted, do demonstrate clearly this is the nature of psittacosaurus manus and feet. This coupled with the fenestrae issue does debunk the idea that psittacosaurus is directly related to the more derived ceratopsians. I believe that was the point of the evidence given and I am unsure where any of this weakens that point.
    Regarding the fossil trade in China, it has always been considered illegal to remove and sell fossils from the mainland, but it was common practice. In fact when they first began cracking down, one of the central problems discovered was that the army was using its own trucks to help move fossil eggs into Hong Kong. It was considered illegal but as common practice right up until the letter of understanding between the US and China dated 2009. Before that time if you could get into China, had the monetary resources and knew the right people you could in effect load up as much as you could remove from some of the areas bribe your way back out with a nice cargo of material. Diplomats from china would routinely dispense eggs, and other fossils as good will gifts, and geologists working in China would return with cases of fossils that were given them as specimens to study. (Hence the story of baby Louie for instance) There are sources out there within the US and Europe that have massive hoards of the various types of fossils that brought them out during that time. The trickle of psittacosaurus is slowing rapidly just as the eggs are begining to dry up. This year I noticed the seller I obtained mine from, offering casts and replicas instead of skeletons for the first time. I considered briefly grabbing a Jeholosaurus replica, but am torn about laying out that much money for something that is not even fossil material. 
Thirty years is hardly a hard line , but no, he did not dig this specimen up himself , although he has restored and sold well over two hundred psittacosaurus skeletons to schools, universities and colleges since the onset of the chinese fossil rush. While I agree many expensive fossils from China are restored, altered, or outright fakes and the general consensus is that the more expensive the more likely, I do believe mine is authentic and as advertised based on the seller and reputation.
   Regarding showing the fossil to paleos and so forth on facebook and twitter...the dinosaur has his own page with at least ten paleontologists on it as friends. I regularly chat with ceratopsid experts on the ceratopsian page, as well. I will take your advice and inquire regarding the upper elements of the feet, although I do believe the smaller phalanges that are lower are all real. I believe what you are referring is the astragulas or ankle bones.
    I also took time to address some of the points you had referenced in your earlier posting regarding later tests done to suggest heterodontosaurids were not located beside Margincephalia. I found the studies done by Butler and Norman that suggested that heterodontosaurids belong alongside Ornischia, rather than beside Margincephalia. A few points worth noting
                  Butler et al. (2008) didn't include Yinlong or basal heterodontosaurids like Echinodon, Tianyulong or Fruitadens.  Other authors have added those to his analysis and still find heterodontosaurids to be basal ornithischians, but I don't know how they would affect the 10 step difference between those trees and trees where heterodontosaurids are by
marginocephalians.

    A few other comments I found worth noting in the later studies were ..the closing statements by both men. Norman et al. (2011) concluded with "further work is required to determine
whether a basal position for Heterodontosauridae
within Ornithischia is more plausible than the
alternatives", and Butler et al. (2008) concluded with "A basal position for heterodontosaurids is more consistent
with the stratigraphic record than previous hypotheses
and has important implications for our understanding of early
ornithischian anatomy, palaeobiology and evolution that will
be explored by future work. However, substantial further
work is required on heterodontosaurid anatomy and character
homology before this hypothesis can be considered
well-supported."
So agreed there are a few studies that support that heterodontosaurs do not belong alongside margincephalie, and rather alongside ornischians( yes I know, I always butcher that word sorry)

Sometimes adding data to the analysis or recoding it can change things enough to make such hypotheses most parsimonious after all, and i am certain you are quite familiar with this. It is hardly a foregone conclusion these findings are definitive and that heterodontosaurids may well be recovered as the sister taxa to margincephalia.

    If we accept the evidence as final here, we then are faced with finding something else that was more directly close to margincephalia in place of the heterodontosaurids. If you remove Yinlong and his quills and other heterodontosaurids, you seem to be moving further from a known or evidence based quilled ancestor.
   I would be curious for my own understanding to see what animals you suggest in this role...do you then move to Stenopelix?The closest sisters to margincephalia are the pachys, so do you start with the Micro pachys from China? Agilisaurus?Hexinlusaurus?
Xiaosaurus?
Jeholosaurus?
Wannanosaurus ?
Where do you personnally see the evidence pointing if you accept the latest studies as final in this discussion? Kulindradromeus emerged closer than most of them to Cerapoda, and dates favorably to the role. However we know that Kulindradromeus was feathered and scaled, not quilled. Or at least the one specimen we do have is. Which does indeed suggest feathered ceratopsians which would not be so bad.....but the original idea was the evidence does not support quills in more derived ceratopsians, so how does this help establish the case any more directly? If anything from what I see, you distance yourself from the known quilled members of the heterodontosaurids, and leave as most likely a feathered dinosaur in its place. I will email and determine the bottom line regarding the psittacosaurus ankle bones, and let you know. I wouldnt mind clarifying that for myself. Meantime I am curious to see how the evidence provided helps the case for quills or bristles using a more accurate term.

[Dinoguy2]

"Can you then explain why so many other psittacosaurus and other type animals that were found within the Jehol Biota do NOT have quills?"
Easily. The Jehol biota is not a single depositional environment. Almost all the known psittacosaurid specimens come from the Lujiatun member. This is the famous "Pompeii" like terrestrial deposit that preserves 3D skeletons in life postures, like Mei long. It does not preserve a single trace of fur or feathers in any known specimen, just excellently preserved bones in life posture.

The other major deposit is the lakebed sediments of the Jianshangou bed. This is slightly older chronologically and is a lagerstatten. It preserves fossils as flattened slabs in 2D, often with various amounts of integument preserved, but the bones are crushed, flattened, and sometimes split between two slabs. There is only one Psittacosaurus specimen preserved this way, and it also happens to be the only one that preserves scales, skin, and feathers. Preservation matters more than anything else.

"Even failing that I am unsure how that would make the in situ specimens appear like mine"
Even in-situ specimens can have parts reconstructed. See any number of Jehol birds and reptiles, even ones that have been published. A seller gets more money for a complete specimen, so they replicate missing bones in cement-conglomerate type mix, with varying degrees of accuracy. This is extraordinarily common - whole papers have been written on this issue.

How many of those pics were even originally in situ? Many museum displays embed fossils that were fully excavated back into plater displays to make them look kind of in situ (though originally because they didn't want to attach them to metal frames). Many pics of Psittacosaurus on Google Images with the style of foot bones you have appear to be intentionally mounted like that.

"clearly untouched resemble my own skeletons elements"
Clearly untouched or touched up? You'd have to examine the specimen to tell. Slab specimens are often even painted over to hide imperfections.

"although he has restored and sold well over two hundred psittacosaurus skeletons to schools, universities and colleges since the onset of the chinese fossil rush."
So how can he guarantee the listed elements are real and not plaster-cement reconstructions? This would have been done by the farmers digging up the specimens to sell to a dealer who sold it to a dealer who sold it to him. Does he CT scan all his specimens?

"I believe what you are referring is the astragulas or ankle bones. "
I'm talking about the metatarsals actually. There should be one individual metatarsal for each phalange. Yours appear to be fused into one solid piece, which is the case only in derived birds and certainly not in ceratopsians. The little pits are also suspicious. This is what you'd expect to see on the distal ends of the bones in juveniles where cartilage attaches, but on yours they extend even onto the mid shaft of the bones and even, apparently, the gaps in between. I have to wonder if those are simply artifacts formed by air bubbles in the plaster.

"If we accept the evidence as final here,"
Both papers you just quoted clearly said we should not. Both hypotheses require more testing, and other lines of evidence suggest that basal ornithischian is the correct placement.

"I would be curious for my own understanding to see what animals you suggest in this role"
What role? Ceratopsian ancestor? Stenopleix and then Jeholosaurids are a decent working hypothesis.

"we know that Kulindradromeus was feathered and scaled, not quilled."
I'm not sure we can say there is a difference yet between feathered and quilled.

The evidence right now shows that we have sparse (Psittacosaurus) to heavy (Tianyulong) and in between (Kulindadromeus) ornithischians all over the family tree from at least basal Cerapoda. Therefore there's a good chance ceratopsids had filaments too. Because we have scaly skin impressions, and the only known filamented ceratopsian has sparse rather than dense filaments, I would say sparse integument is the most conservative way to restore them. Sure maybe some were totally fluffy and maybe some were totally scaly and some were in between, but Psittacosaurus style is in that range of possibility.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Since my psitacosaurus seems to be a "bone" pun intended of contention for you I will address this and come back to your other points after work.

   The email I sent Mike Holmes per your questions.....


Had been studying and learning a bit more about my skeleton and have raised a question. Are the bone areas above the tarsals  sculpted on these mounts you offer? I keep running into the suggestion that while the lower foot elements may be legitimate , the ankles are all sculpted material. I think I remember your making a comment about the ankle bones not preserving, but I also remember you telling me nothing was artificial or added to the skeleton and it was all fossil material. ( we were discussing the idea of restoring the spines on the verts and you suggested leaving it alone as the specimen was all original fossil material as it stood. )
   Still the large ankle bone area resembles more a plate than individual elements, so I am curious about it, can you clarify?


His response ......The metatarsals to which you refer are (as is the rest of the skeleton, excepting ribs), actual fossilized bone.
 
They have not been sculpted - they preserve in a manner resembling a plate as opposed to individual elements, due to thousands of tons of overbearing sedimentary pressure.
 
In over 400 specimens we have prepared, they have virtually all preserved in this manner.
 
The attached photos show other examples for comparison.
 
Kind regards,
 
Mike Holmes

   I think that should clearly refute the idea my fossil has areas that are faked or restored etc. Mike Holmes is an accredited paleontologist and operates Triassica fossils. You may inquire of him on ebay under that name or Facebook if you wish to indepently confirm the information.

[Dinoguy2]

Since my psitacosaurus seems to be a "bone" pun intended of contention for you I will address this and come back to your other points after work.

   The email I sent Mike Holmes per your questions.....


Had been studying and learning a bit more about my skeleton and have raised a question. Are the bone areas above the tarsals  sculpted on these mounts you offer? I keep running into the suggestion that while the lower foot elements may be legitimate , the ankles are all sculpted material. I think I remember your making a comment about the ankle bones not preserving, but I also remember you telling me nothing was artificial or added to the skeleton and it was all fossil material. ( we were discussing the idea of restoring the spines on the verts and you suggested leaving it alone as the specimen was all original fossil material as it stood. )
   Still the large ankle bone area resembles more a plate than individual elements, so I am curious about it, can you clarify?


His response ......The metatarsals to which you refer are (as is the rest of the skeleton, excepting ribs), actual fossilized bone.
 
They have not been sculpted - they preserve in a manner resembling a plate as opposed to individual elements, due to thousands of tons of overbearing sedimentary pressure.
 
In over 400 specimens we have prepared, they have virtually all preserved in this manner.
 
The attached photos show other examples for comparison.
 
Kind regards,
 
Mike Holmes

   I think that should clearly refute the idea my fossil has areas that are faked or restored etc. Mike Holmes is an accredited paleontologist and operates Triassica fossils. You may inquire of him on ebay under that name or Facebook if you wish to indepently confirm the information.

That sounds plausible - one of my original explanations was that they may not have been fully prepared apart. Given the web layout with a collage of images from JP and stolen from Mark Witton, I wasn't immediately ready to accept Triassica as a necessarily professional or reputable source... maybe Holmes just needs to hire a new web designer.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Since my psitacosaurus seems to be a "bone" pun intended of contention for you I will address this and come back to your other points after work.

   The email I sent Mike Holmes per your questions.....


Had been studying and learning a bit more about my skeleton and have raised a question. Are the bone areas above the tarsals  sculpted on these mounts you offer? I keep running into the suggestion that while the lower foot elements may be legitimate , the ankles are all sculpted material. I think I remember your making a comment about the ankle bones not preserving, but I also remember you telling me nothing was artificial or added to the skeleton and it was all fossil material. ( we were discussing the idea of restoring the spines on the verts and you suggested leaving it alone as the specimen was all original fossil material as it stood. )
   Still the large ankle bone area resembles more a plate than individual elements, so I am curious about it, can you clarify?


His response ......The metatarsals to which you refer are (as is the rest of the skeleton, excepting ribs), actual fossilized bone.
 
They have not been sculpted - they preserve in a manner resembling a plate as opposed to individual elements, due to thousands of tons of overbearing sedimentary pressure.
 
In over 400 specimens we have prepared, they have virtually all preserved in this manner.
 
The attached photos show other examples for comparison.
 
Kind regards,
 
Mike Holmes

   I think that should clearly refute the idea my fossil has areas that are faked or restored etc. Mike Holmes is an accredited paleontologist and operates Triassica fossils. You may inquire of him on ebay under that name or Facebook if you wish to indepently confirm the information.

That sounds plausible - one of my original explanations was that they may not have been fully prepared apart. Given the web layout with a collage of images from JP and stolen from Mark Witton, I wasn't immediately ready to accept Triassica as a necessarily professional or reputable source... maybe Holmes just needs to hire a new web designer.

You know, I can actually sympathize with that viewpoint. Over the years he has used these different types of screens and images and so forth that make navigating not only his ebay sales but his web site a bit tricky. I find myself completely and totally in support of that comment of yours honestly.....I remember getting lost several times on his site for instance. I am unsure if he pays a web master or does it himself, but yeah not his best game . I am unsure if he is still using it, but his psittacosaurus image for his site, used to be a picture of an Aaron Doyle psittacosaurus, against some kind of background. When we got into a discussion how to pose my dinosaur, he copied that model and its posture for my skeleton.
   I do know he has a list of credentials that is a quite impressive, and he has also published a book on Keichosaurus fossils and how to spot fakes.
   I was watching the guy and his sales for a year before I ever pulled the trigger on a purchase, back four years ago. I must have emailed him so many times with questions that I am sure he groans when he gets an email from me even now. When I purchased the dinosaur it was not mounted, skull was infilled, bones were displayed on the top of an outdoor swimming pool loose.
   Most people would not get it but purchasing a dinosaur is not like getting a new refrigerator...you have to decide what pose, wether to attempt to open the mouth, hand posture, running, sitting walking....a dozen things and more. Even such things as the ribs...do you want no ribs, resin replicas painted to look real, or the el cheapo wooden options? I went through that journey with this man, and he worked so hard to get it how I wanted and rise above, that I am still in awe of his expertise, service and knowledge. Since that time, each and every time I send him questions he takes the time and effort to give me answers. I consider him a great source of information, and a solid man to deal with. I hope his answer does fill in the blanks...and make better sense. I also know he loves dinosaurs and will answer any questions you might have further.