Prosauropod integument

[Newt]

Google scholar turned up nothing, so I thought I'd ask here: are there any known skin impressions of prosauropods (non-sauropod sauropodomorphs)? Just curious.

[ImADinosaurRARR]

I don't think there are any. Here's a blog post by Mark Witton on the topic of prosauropod feathers/filiments that might help you.

Why are you asking? Is this an art project?

[Sim]

It's worth noting that since that blog post, Mark Witton reworked his Plateosaurus to remove the feathers: https://twitter.com/markwitton/status/1039108047682060293

As far as I know, there is skin impressions from a non-sauropod sauropodomorph, I read about it once, but I wasn't able to find anything more about it.

[stargatedalek]

Some prosauropods were relatively small and lithe and they lived in broad ranges of climates, so it's certainly possible they were feathered. But it's also most likely that derived sauropods lost all or practically all (potentially retaining some vestigially or for display) of their feathers. We don't know when that change happened so prosauropods can reasonably be reconstructed either way.

It's worth noting that since that blog post, Mark Witton reworked his Plateosaurus to remove the feathers: https://twitter.com/markwitton/status/1039108047682060293

As far as I know, there is skin impressions from a non-sauropod sauropodomorph, I read about it once, but I wasn't able to find anything more about it.

Scrolling the comments it seems he changed that in reference to a then recent talk at SVPCA2018 that was suggesting feathers shouldn't date back to Triassic groups at large. This has however been proven inaccurate between the crocodilian genetic studies that found unused feather producing genes (meaning their common ancestor with Ornithodira had soft integument) and the temperature studies suggesting Coelophysis would have needed feathers to survive in some sections of its range.

Does that mean prosauropods had feathers? No. But it means the reasoning for saying they inherently didn't was flawed.

[Newt]

Thanks, all!

I @ImADinosaurRARR - Not a specific impending art project, but I surely will draw/paint/sculpt a prosauropod or two at some point.


@Sim - If you come across that reference again, please let me know! I'd love to read it.


@stargatedalek - I didn't know about the croc genetics study, that's very interesting. Fluffy stem-crocs? Intriguing....

[Stegotyranno420]

Are you in support of feathered, or scaled prosauropods? Just curious

[Newt]

@Stegotyranno420 -  I just want to know, I don't have a preference or a pre-formed opinion. It would be interesting if they were fuzzy or feathery just because we've seen them depicted as scaly for so long, but it would also be interesting if they turned out to be scaly after all - because scaliness, in this case, would probably be an evolutionary change from a fluffy ancestor (if it turns out that the fluff of theropods, ornithischians, and pterosaurs is all derived from their common ancestor and not independently derived), and the fact that the change occurred could offer some insight into what prosauropods were doing differently from their fluffy cousins.

[Stegotyranno420]

I honestly think its more interesting if it was convergence, it reminds me of lots of spec evo stories.
Also I made a drawing of a speculative prosauropod, and let me tell you, its the exact opposite of integumented
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=9357.msg283316#msg283316

[Bowhead Whale]

Are you in support of feathered, or scaled prosauropods? Just curious

It's indeed hard to have an opinion of this, since we don't have living prosauropods to observe today! However, even though I could be wrong, I have a tendency to think they were scaled. Why? Because some diplodocus skin impressions showed scales. OK, maybe you will tell me diplodocus was not a prosauropod, and you will be right on that. But a scale evolving into a feather to go back being a scale again? Hum... That sounds a little suspicious to me. When the ancestors of whales returned to water, they didn't redevelopped gills: they remained with their lungs. Well, to me, it is a similar thing with scales. If prosauropods had feathers which sauropods lost afterwards, well, sauropods would have developped something different instead of going back to scales, going back to something they lost for a very long time. Just like whales never went back to having gills again and developped a different way to live in water than fishes.

[Newt]

Birds have scales on their legs. Some mammals have scaly tails or scaly armor. They are developmentally and anatomically different from reptile scales (which are themselves different from fish and caecilian scales), but they all look similar to the naked eye.


The point being, scales seem to be pretty easy to re-evolve. You could also say that we are being too loose with the term "scale", since fish, reptile, bird, and mammal scales are all quite different from one another and have separate evolutionary origins. But in any case, I don't think the scaly integument of diplodocids tells us much about the integument of their earlier cousins.

[Bowhead Whale]

Birds have scales on their legs. Some mammals have scaly tails or scaly armor. They are developmentally and anatomically different from reptile scales (which are themselves different from fish and caecilian scales), but they all look similar to the naked eye.


The point being, scales seem to be pretty easy to re-evolve. You could also say that we are being too loose with the term "scale", since fish, reptile, bird, and mammal scales are all quite different from one another and have separate evolutionary origins. But in any case, I don't think the scaly integument of diplodocids tells us much about the integument of their earlier cousins.

Right and right: prosauropods and sauropods were different. And pholidotes scales are different from reptiles scales. But, in a way, that was my point. Scales of pholidotes ARE different from reptiles scales. And, that is what I think, if peosauropds had feathers, sauropods scales would have been different from other dinosaurs' scales, which have always remained the same. And fish scales, to many "naked eyes" are different from scales of many reptiles. So, sauropods scales, if their ancestors had feathers, would have been different from scales of other dinosaurs. Right?

[ITdactyl]

I think of all dinosaurs now as feathered, in the same way that all mammals have hair/fur (eg, even the most hairless of whales had a few hairs on their lips as babies, only to be shed as they grow).  In my mind, even the scaliest tyrannosaurid probably had tiny sparse tufts as part of their integument, similar to the hair coverage on say an elephant or rhino.

To answer the post though, my image of prosauropods (and even sauropods) is similar to my view of tyrannosaurids. Scaly with a few hair-life tufts of proto-feathers... probably on the head and nape, near the external ear, possible false lashes, possibly some other parts of the body.

[stargatedalek]

Birds have scales on their legs. Some mammals have scaly tails or scaly armor. They are developmentally and anatomically different from reptile scales (which are themselves different from fish and caecilian scales), but they all look similar to the naked eye.


The point being, scales seem to be pretty easy to re-evolve. You could also say that we are being too loose with the term "scale", since fish, reptile, bird, and mammal scales are all quite different from one another and have separate evolutionary origins. But in any case, I don't think the scaly integument of diplodocids tells us much about the integument of their earlier cousins.

Right and right: prosauropods and sauropods were different. And pholidotes scales are different from reptiles scales. But, in a way, that was my point. Scales of pholidotes ARE different from reptiles scales. And, that is what I think, if peosauropds had feathers, sauropods scales would have been different from other dinosaurs' scales, which have always remained the same. And fish scales, to many "naked eyes" are different from scales of many reptiles. So, sauropods scales, if their ancestors had feathers, would have been different from scales of other dinosaurs. Right?

They are different from other dinosaurs scales.

[Bowhead Whale]

Birds have scales on their legs. Some mammals have scaly tails or scaly armor. They are developmentally and anatomically different from reptile scales (which are themselves different from fish and caecilian scales), but they all look similar to the naked eye.


The point being, scales seem to be pretty easy to re-evolve. You could also say that we are being too loose with the term "scale", since fish, reptile, bird, and mammal scales are all quite different from one another and have separate evolutionary origins. But in any case, I don't think the scaly integument of diplodocids tells us much about the integument of their earlier cousins.

Right and right: prosauropods and sauropods were different. And pholidotes scales are different from reptiles scales. But, in a way, that was my point. Scales of pholidotes ARE different from reptiles scales. And, that is what I think, if peosauropds had feathers, sauropods scales would have been different from other dinosaurs' scales, which have always remained the same. And fish scales, to many "naked eyes" are different from scales of many reptiles. So, sauropods scales, if their ancestors had feathers, would have been different from scales of other dinosaurs. Right?

They are different from other dinosaurs scales.

Really? I didn't know that! In what were they different?