All Dinosaurs may have had feathers.

[stoneage]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341948/description/All__dinosaurs_may_have_had_feathers

[Battatitan]

Fascinating, thanks for sharing. Only this potentially means that our entire collections are out-dated  

[Takama]

Man. Science can change on ya.  I don't know how I can handle the change

[tyrantqueen]

And how does the presence of feathers on a theropod prove the existence of feathers on other lines, such as sauropods? I'm not saying that many species of dinosaur couldn't have had feathers, I just don't see the point of this speculation when there is 0% evidence to support it (in fact, scale impressions of hadrosaurs and sauropods are against it)

*facepalm*

This is old news, anyway. What about the "mummified" hadrosaurs, Leonardo and Dakota? If they had feathers, surely they would have been preserved with them. Clearly, they are scaly.

Just another sensationalistic headline. Wasn't this Megalosaur a juvenile animal anyway?

[Patrx]

Ah, yes, Sciurumimus! Someone ought to make a figure of that guy already. Near as I can tell, it's one of the most important dinosaur discoveries of the century

t the "mummified" hadrosaurs, Leonardo and Dakota? If they had feathers, surely they would have been preserved with them.

Not necessarily, no. Fossilizing feather imprints is rather a different process than the fossilization of skin. Besides, imagine the possibilities! Feathered stegosaurs, feathered iguanodonts - all of our palaeoart would be miles off

[tyrantqueen]

Not necessarily, no. Fossilizing feather imprints is rather a different process than the fossilization of skin.

How convienient....

[ZoPteryx]

Good article, although somewhat misleading I think.  As far I know, Sciurumimus only suggests for feathers in a wider variety of theropods, not all other dinos too.  If they wanted to push that theory, they should've mentioned the filaments of Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong.

[wings]

Not necessarily, no. Fossilizing feather imprints is rather a different process than the fossilization of skin. Besides, imagine the possibilities! Feathered stegosaurs, feathered iguanodonts - all of our palaeoart would be miles off

I don't get the point of your argument here; Are you implying that the deposition environment favor the fossilization of skin impression on hadrosaurs doesn't allow the preservation of other integument apart from scales (such as feathers)? Also how is it that feather imprints different from scale imprints? Are we just talking about trace fossils that is very much caused by gravity (weight of the "body" pressed against sediment) or we are talking about something entirely different? 

[Derek Sohoza]

Sounds like a lot of trendy speculation to me, that for some reason, excites a shocking number of dinosaur enthusiasts. What ever happened to science? What happened to hard proof before making wild conjecture? Don't get me wrong, I think we can reasonably speculate, based on the hard evidence, that most theropods had feathers. But this article gives nothing to show that all dinosaurs might have had feathers.
It's about as ridiculous as everyone illustrating triceratops with quills based on two relative species and a scientific paper that has not been released and may not even exist.

[CityRaptor]

Ahhh, one of those typical misleading headlines. Again.
All the little felllow proves that Theropod Feathers are more widespread.

To Quote myself:

A feathered Megalosaurid? Wow! Guess we can really kiss the scaly Theropods goodbye soon. For some odd reason I now want someone to draw a feathered Earl Sinclair....

[Patrx]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not yet convinced that all dinosaurs had feathers, either. I simply think it's at least as rational to suspect they did as it is to suspect they didn't.

[Everything_Dinosaur]

Thanks for posting, most informative article.

[Libraraptor]

....and mammoths, insects, pterosaurs, pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, simply each and every prehistoric creature, too! 

[Lythronax]

Hi,

if anyone here is interested in this topic, in this post I discuss the issue of feathers in dinosaurs very extensively.

http://www.dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php/topic,1804.0.html

[Georassic]

Fascinating, thanks for sharing. Only this potentially means that our entire collections are out-dated  

I just said the same thing about out-dated to my wife. She immediately forbade me from starting over. 

[DeadToothCrackKnuckle]

It would be pretty obvious that all ornithodirans would be feathered. It's extremely likely all pterosaurs had plumage and since pterosaurs and dinosaurs split off before either of them were technically pterosaurs or dinosaurs, it's safe to say that this hypothetical proto-ornithodiran that split into the two groups of animals had some sort of primitive feathers making all dinosaurs feathered for at least some stage in their life.

[Hermes888]

Am I wrong in remembering that there have been infant sauropod skin impressions?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Am I wrong in remembering that there have been infant sauropod skin impressions?

infant and adult skin impressions for sauropods.

[DeadToothCrackKnuckle]

Am I wrong in remembering that there have been infant sauropod skin impressions?

infant and adult skin impressions for sauropods.

It's common sense that filament like feathers are much harder to preserve than thick scales, just like Patrx said, if you were paying attention.

[tyrantqueen]

Am I wrong in remembering that there have been infant sauropod skin impressions?

infant and adult skin impressions for sauropods.

It's common sense that filament like feathers are much harder to preserve than thick scales, just like Patrx said, if you were paying attention.

Why would an animal evolve thick scales if they're going to be covered up by feathers? All animals that have integument, such as birds, have very fine scales and smooth skin.



I thought the purpose of dermal armour was to protect the body.