Top 4 most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses.

[Paleogene Pals]

Pardon my ignorance, but I assume BAND means 'birds are not dinosaurs'? I have not heard that term before.

[HD-man]

Is the Diplodocus trunk still a thing?

Not really, but this article can answer your question better than I can: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/11/20/no-trunks-for-sauropods-2012/

Pardon my ignorance, but I assume BAND means 'birds are not dinosaurs'? I have not heard that term before.

You assume correctly. This article should help with the other bird-related acronyms: http://otherbranch.blogspot.com/2010/11/acronyms-in-bird-origins-debate.html

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I personally would give all dinosaurs some degree of integument, not full on feathers but a light "dusting" of fluffy structures, similar to elephant hair
but thats just me, at this point with a lot of groups we still get creative liberty in that regard

I myself think that is not a particularly accurate or possible scenario. We do have alot of scale impressions and full body casts for at least two different species of duckbill. We have animals like Carnotaurus that were found with at least forty percent of the body covered in scale impressions. There is the triceratops Lane, which demonstrates several areas of the body with scale impressions. We also have this psittacosaurus that demonstrates some quill covering and some scales as well. There is also Tianyulong which was found covered in quills. There are enough dinosaurs out there being found with alternate covering other than feathers at this point to suggest there is more to the discussion. Of course many people assume quills are analgous to feathers so....
  And all of that does nothing to address the recent find covered partially in both feathers and scales, proving that a feathered dinosaur does not have to be entirely feathered and a scaled dinosaur can have feathers, however you view that one.

[stargatedalek]

as I said, integument, not feathers per-se but something similar in appearance

and as we've discussed in depth previously, scales =/= lack of integument

[amargasaurus cazaui]

as I said, integument, not feathers per-se but something similar in appearance

Despite the fact we can prove conclusively many species did not have anything like that?

[EmperorDinobot]

Is the Diplodocus trunk still a thing?

Not really, but this article can answer your question better than I can: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/11/20/no-trunks-for-sauropods-2012/

Pardon my ignorance, but I assume BAND means 'birds are not dinosaurs'? I have not heard that term before.

You assume correctly. This article should help with the other bird-related acronyms: http://otherbranch.blogspot.com/2010/11/acronyms-in-bird-origins-debate.html

So that's where Tet-Zoo had been hiding. Thanks! That was a really great article!

[HD-man]

So that's where Tet-Zoo had been hiding. Thanks! That was a really great article!

Anytime!

[Dinoguy2]

as I said, integument, not feathers per-se but something similar in appearance

Despite the fact we can prove conclusively many species did not have anything like that?

has any kind of filament integument ever been found as part of a natural cast specimen rather than a carbon stain in a slab specimen? I think only in Solnhofen are there integument casts and maybe in Crato, but those are still slabs. In Ornithomimus, the integument was carbon stains, not casts. It may not be possible for integument to be preserved in mudstone casts even when scales are exquisitely preserved. Especially if they're fine, soft filaments.

In other words, the types of rocks that are good at preserving casts of course texture like scales are not usually also good at preserving carbon stains of fine detail like color patterns or fuzz, so we should actually not expect to find them together (making Kulinda even more special). So even if hadrosaurids were covered in a fine, elephant like fuzz, we have not yet found a hadrosaur fossil preserved in a way that could show it.

[Patrx]

In other words, the types of rocks that are good at preserving casts of course texture like scales are not usually also good at preserving carbon stains of fine detail like color patterns or fuzz, so we should actually not expect to find them together (making Kulinda even more special). So even if hadrosaurids were covered in a fine, elephant like fuzz, we have not yet found a hadrosaur fossil preserved in a way that could show it.

Quite so! I've been saying that sort of thing for ages. The same goes for scale impressions from the likes of Carnotaurus. The sediment that preserves those scale casts would not necessarily retain traces of other integumentary structures like feathers; in most cases, that's a totally different kind of preservation. Coupling that with the fact that modern theropods often have feathers and scutes on the same regions of their body, there's still a lot we can't say for sure about the body coverings of these animals.

[stargatedalek]

as I said, integument, not feathers per-se but something similar in appearance

Despite the fact we can prove conclusively many species did not have anything like that?

no such proof exists, as has already been explained scales =/= lack of integument

[amargasaurus cazaui]

as I said, integument, not feathers per-se but something similar in appearance

Despite the fact we can prove conclusively many species did not have anything like that?

no such proof exists, as has already been explained scales =/= lack of integument

So is the speculation here trying to suggest fuzz grew from scales, around them or how? Not sure what any of that entire point proves. If you have for instance a hardosaur entirely preserved with scale covering, where do you speculate it was also growing fuzz? Was it growing out between each scale or right through the scale iteself? None of that seems quite likely or even biologically correct. So when you take the carnotaurus for instance, while we lack its entire covering, we have enough to make a reasonable surmise no fur , no feathers, no mysterious little fuzz growing from the missing areas. It is true the fossil environment seems to preserver one or the other, but it does not prove that the other then had to somehow exist . That is negative evidence.
  When we examine the area of scales preserved for Lane or Wyrex, there is no area that would have been likely to support fuzz , fur, feathers, or any other type of integument. This is not due to fossil preservation bias, but rather due to basic biology. Where are you inferring it would have been growing from?

[stargatedalek]

look at the extent of hair on rhinoceros or elephants, I'd say that sort of extent could be present

[amargasaurus cazaui]

look at the extent of hair on rhinoceros or elephants, I'd say that sort of extent could be present

Alright but still growing from where? Is it being suggested it grew over scales, through them, or around them?I accept there could be fuzz or skin or whatever type integument in areas or even dinosaurs we lack full or nearly full body covering from, but for most duckbill speices we have alot of scale material, and we have 40 percent of carnotaurus, demonstrating scales. We have a large neck patch from a Tyrannosaurus and we have a nice back hip area from Lane. What I am saying is for the animals and the areas we have solid scale areas preserved it provides proof of no feathers or fur in those areas or those particular animals we have most of the covering preserved for....ie Leonardo, or Dakota by example.

[Patrx]

Alright but still growing from where? Is it being suggested it grew over scales, through them, or around them?

Feathers can definitely grow around and between scales, even to the point of covering them up.



Let's say this owl's foot got fossilized in the same kind of sediment as, for example, "Dakota",  the hadrosaur. Seventy million years later, an observer might find clear evidence of those scutes in the form of casts, but the fuzzy feathers that covered those scutes in life would probably have left no trace.

On another interesting note, there are lots of different structures that are commonly called "scales". Fish scales, snake scales, lizard scales, mammal scales, and dinosaur scales are all distinct. I recently heard via the Tetrapod Zoology podcast that dinosaur scales are basically heavily keratinized feathers, though I wish they'd gone into more detail. I wonder what that means for the scales of crocodilians?

By the way, this segment of the discussion might belong in one of the more feather-centric threads.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The one thing i can see here that really disrupts your logic is that Dakota did not have any large body areas with missing integument, whereas your example once fossilized would indeed be either feather outlined or show no integument at all. Dakota and Leonardo both somewhat show an entire fossil envelope with scales and no other form of integument anywhere . Your example works to a degree but still is following the Kulindradromeus style animal, and not that of an animal entirely covered in scales like these duckbills by example.

One thing I am unclear on and could use some more information Patrx. In looking at your picture does the feathering begin at the edge of the scaled feet and then overlap the scales or are the feathers actually based and protruding out from between the scales?Is there a clear definition where scales end and feathers begin or are you demonstrating the feathers are based in and around the scales to create a mixture?My understanding of avian feet is lacking there, please explain.
Also agree we are off topic and need moved to a more feather like environment

[stargatedalek]

They grow between the scales

[Patrx]

The one thing i can see here that really disrupts your logic is that Dakota did not have any large body areas with missing integument, whereas your example once fossilized would indeed be either feather outlined or show no integument at all.

Actually, I'm under the impression that, with the owl example, the preserved feet would show evidence of the scales with no sign of feathers - not a "blank" area. Those fine filaments just don't seem to show up in casts the way scales do - even though they can leave trace stains under other circumstances..

One thing I am unclear on and could use some more information Patrx. In looking at your picture does the feathering begin at the edge of the scaled feet and then overlap the scales or are the feathers actually based and protruding out from between the scales?Is there a clear definition where scales end and feathers begin or are you demonstrating the feathers are based in and around the scales to create a mixture?My understanding of avian feet is lacking there, please explain.
Also agree we are off topic and need moved to a more feather like environment

Aye, the feathers in that are a bit too dense to show the scales among them. Let me find another example:


You can see the fine filaments growing out between the scales here, similar to the way hair grows between the scales of an armadillo.
Is there a way to move posts to another thread without the help of an admin?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The picture does suggest a fascinating posibibility for scaled animals, doesn't it? I keep wondering how the feet and legs of the brooding oviraptors grade out...scales or feathers present at all, or just the skeletal material.

[stargatedalek]

well if they lived in environments with snow, or hot sand, than feathers on the feet could be very helpful

[Patrx]

Indeed! As far as I have seen, this arrangement seems to show up on the feet of owls and some other raptors. I wonder what evolutionary pressures were involved? Is it a basal condition to which the owls have returned, or something that they never moved away from in the first place? Are there other birds that show the same?