Re: Feathering proof

[Gwangi]

The key to thinking  with Carnegie is they will not release a resculpt feathered of any kind unless there is enough fossil proof for it. To my own thinking that would make it far more likely they have redone the oviraptor or perhaps therizinosaur, or microraptor.The evidence for any forms of feathered raptors is still equivocal at best.....despite the likelihood .

You used Oviraptor as an example but there is no direct fossil evidence of feathers on Oviraptor. It is inferred that Oviraptor had them based on feathers found on related animals...like Caudipteryx. Velociraptor however does have preserved quill knobs so it actually has more evidence of feathers than Oviraptor. Despite this Safari/Carnegie has made two different sculpts of a feathered Oviraptor and there is also the one on the nest so I don't think they would shy away from feathers on Velociraptor or even Deinonychus. Also, Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus are both feathered and belong to the dromaeosaur family so the evidence for feathered "raptors" is quite strong.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Actually, the evidence used to suggest oviraptor as feathered has little to do with relative species or such a casual relationship. The evidence given , while also indirect is the multitude of nesting specimens found in brooding position. The studies done all tend to suggest such a posture would be useless without the presence of feathering to warm and also somewhat insulate the eggs from the skeletal structure of the animal nesting. Therefore a feathered covering has been inferred by behaivor found within the fossil record.This has held true for not only the Oviraptorids, but most manniraptors...Citipatti, Gigantaraptor, by example.I believe in your library was a copy of the book by Kenneth Carpenter where that discussion and argument is made rather soundly.
  Quill nobs from the material I have read are not exclusive to feathered animals, and there are alternate explanations being offered for this, which I am sure you are familiar with as you mentioned them.Indeed there a fair number fossils with quill knobs that are considered to be just that..quill knobs.
Carnegie has done a feathered microraptor...if they wished to state they have a feathered Velociraptorid they could yes? There is a bit of difference between finding a fossil with complete feathering, ala Mircoraptor and assuming due to family relationships that all others within that family might....and generally speaking at least Carnegie avoids such guesses.They generally find something more definitive to work with before going forward

[Gwangi]

I think being among the closet relatives of birds (so much so that some even consider them birds) among the theropod group is definitive enough in the case of feathers on dromaeosaurs. I'm aware of the evidence for feathered Oviraptors and never intended to suggest that they did not have them, merely point out that the evidence for feathers on "raptors" is as good as it is for Oviraptor. Many species of oviraptorids also have a pygostyle which is strong evidence for feathering so I'm certainly not trying to argue that they did not have them.
While I would agree with your position on Carnegie if we were talking about something like Tyrannosaurus being feathered I think the people at Carnegie are aware that feathers on dromaeosaurs are all but a guarantee in genera like Velociraptor and Deinonychus. No serious paleontologist questions this anymore and Carnegie I think would feel quite safe adding them on. I certainly don't think they would produce a model at this point of a dromaeosaur without them...I would certainly hope not. The thing is for an animal like Velociraptor we don't need direct evidence of feathers to know they had them. There is no evidence for scales on Velociraptor either...or many of the dinosaurs Carnegie produced but they add them anyway because it makes sense to, it wouldn't make sense to not add feathers for an animal that is basically a bird.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I think being among the closet relatives of birds (so much so that some even consider them birds) among the theropod group is definitive enough in the case of feathers on dromaeosaurs. I'm aware of the evidence for feathered Oviraptors and never intended to suggest that they did not have them, merely point out that the evidence for feathers on "raptors" is as good as it is for Oviraptor. Many species of oviraptorids also have a pygostyle which is strong evidence for feathering so I'm certainly not trying to argue that they did not have them.

While I would agree with your position on Carnegie if we were talking about something like Tyrannosaurus being feathered I think the people at Carnegie are aware that feathers on dromaeosaurs are all but a guarantee in genera like Velociraptor and Deinonychus. No serious paleontologist questions this anymore and Carnegie I think would feel quite safe adding them on. I certainly don't think they would produce a model at this point of a dromaeosaur without them...I would certainly hope not. The thing is for an animal like Velociraptor we don't need direct evidence of feathers to know they had them. There is no evidence for scales on Velociraptor either...or many of the dinosaurs Carnegie produced but they add them anyway because it makes sense to, it wouldn't make sense to not add feathers for an animal that is basically a bird.

I agree with most of what you said, although in a nutshell, I think the argument is being much to simplified and fails to account for a few things. While there have been no velociraptors found with scales, none with feathers are seemingly found either.It comes down to wether you force feathers onto the animal to fit the family heritage or you question if perhaps its placement might be flawed to start with. I am of the latter thought process. I do not see where forcing it into that family then somehow offers evidence it was feathered. It only proves you have chosen to place a dinosaur in a family that appear to have been feathered despite the lack of evidence to suggest this one was. Once having placed it there, you can state that as your reasoning for it having been feathered despite the entire body of evidence to date proving null (not contrary)

You did make  a comment I wished to pose a question for if you could please. You said "Many species of oviraptorids also have a pygostyle which is strong evidence for feathering so I'm certainly not trying to argue that they did not have them. " This was something I was vaguely familiar with but had not really digested until reading it again. My question would seem obvious then...and asked because I myself am unsure, but has this structure been detected on the Velociraptorid family itself....I would assume in the already known feathered ones it would be present but is it also found in the larger raptors as well?
I would think if this were accepted as evidence of feathering in Oviraptors it might be a strong indicator for the other raptors as well.

  I am surprised that there would exist that strong of consensus in the paleo community for this argument in favor of especially the North American species being feathered when there is zero evidence to directly support it, similar to the trendy fluke often being given Tylosaurus nowdays. I do not feel that has been the accepted position in my reading, given the number of dinosaurs found in North America with scale and skin impressions.
Oh well if Carnegie makes the figure, they are keeping with the trend of cryptids and mythological animals in their tube series I guess. Perhaps next year they can offer us a Griffin, or Cyclops since there is debateable fossil evidence to suggest they exist as well !!!

[Gwangi]

I agree with most of what you said, although in a nutshell, I think the argument is being much to simplified and fails to account for a few things. While there have been no velociraptors found with scales, none with feathers are seemingly found either.It comes down to wether you force feathers onto the animal to fit the family heritage or you question if perhaps its placement might be flawed to start with. I am of the latter thought process. I do not see where forcing it into that family then somehow offers evidence it was feathered. It only proves you have chosen to place a dinosaur in a family that appear to have been feathered despite the lack of evidence to suggest this one was. Once having placed it there, you can state that as your reasoning for it having been feathered despite the entire body of evidence to date proving null (not contrary)

So you're suggesting that since feathers have not been found for Velociraptor that reproductions of them should...not include feathers? Despite being a close relative to birds and the presence of other feathered dromaeosaurs in the fossil record? So if someone were to sculpt or draw a Velociraptor than what do you suggest they cover it with? And why? There is no forcing Velociraptor into the dromaeosaur family, that is what it is, clearly and unarguably. I don't see your logic here, all I see is a lack of understanding on how dinosaurs are classified. The lack of fossil feathers for Velociraptor is not due to it belonging to a different family, there are none simply because they weren't preserved.

You did make  a comment I wished to pose a question for if you could please. You said "Many species of oviraptorids also have a pygostyle which is strong evidence for feathering so I'm certainly not trying to argue that they did not have them. " This was something I was vaguely familiar with but had not really digested until reading it again. My question would seem obvious then...and asked because I myself am unsure, but has this structure been detected on the Velociraptorid family itself....I would assume in the already known feathered ones it would be present but is it also found in the larger raptors as well?

No, there is no pygostyle that I'm familiar with on Velociraptor. Also, there is no "Velociraptorid" family. Velociraptor is a genus of dinosaur within the family dromaeosauridae (along with the feathered Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus). The dromaeosaur family rests within the clade deinonychosauria along with the troodontids for which many feathered example exist. Deinonychosauria rests within Paraves along with birds. Paraves is a group of dinosaurs more closely related to birds than to... oviraptorosaurs. That means Velociraptor is more closely related to birds than either is to Oviraptor. There is no arguing against it, Velociraptor had feathers. Until proven otherwise, a very unlikely event. Sometimes you don't need direct evidence, critical thinking and logic can bring you to a reasonable conclusion.

I would think if this were accepted as evidence of feathering in Oviraptors it might be a strong indicator for the other raptors as well.

There is. Also, oviraptorids are not "raptors". Raptors is the pop-culture name that has unfortunately been attached to the dromaeosaur family.

I am surprised that there would exist that strong of consensus in the paleo community for this argument in favor of especially the North American species being feathered when there is zero evidence to directly support it.

If you truly are surprised than this only shows me that you don't understand exactly what the dromaeosaur family is, what evidence exists for their being feathered and just how closely related to birds they are (hint: very closely, among the closest, honestly we should just call them birds). Feathers don't preserve well, that is why with the exception of Archeopteryx there had been no discoveries of feathered dinosaurs until 1996. It is in no way a surprise that feathered dromaeosaurs have not been found in North America. They might never be but that does not mean they weren't. I will tell you what there is...no evidence that any dromaeosaur didn't have feathers. Every dromaeosaur found so far where a skin impression has been preserved has had feathers, nuff said.

Oh well if Carnegie makes the figure, they are keeping with the trend of cryptids and mythological animals in their tube series I guess. Perhaps next year they can offer us a Griffin, or Cyclops since there is debateable fossil evidence to suggest they exist as well !!!

Luckily I can tell this was a joke. I honestly don't know if the rest of what you've wrote was meant to be.

[Hermes888]

I thought there was fossil evidence in Velociraptor arm bones that indicate the presence of feathers, or was I mistaken?

[CityRaptor]

Indeed there is:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm

[Balaur]

I thought there was fossil evidence in Velociraptor arm bones that indicate the presence of feathers, or was I mistaken?

There was direct evidence for feathers on Velociraptor, quill knobs on an arm bone.

EDIT: CityRaptor beat me to it.

[Hermes888]

I was pretty sure the quills confirmed the presence of feathers, but I was afraid that since neither of the two mentioned it, it had been disproved or something along those lines, and I would end up having egg on my face.

[Gwangi]

I was pretty sure the quills confirmed the presence of feathers, but I was afraid that since neither of the two mentioned it, it had been disproved or something along those lines, and I would end up having egg on my face.

I did mention it but Amargasaurus dismissed it.   

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I dismissed it because quills knobs of themselves provide no proof of feathers. They can be suggestive of such yes, but are not in themselves proof.Or if you are going to state that argument are you suggesting the animals we have evidence were quilled, were not , simply due to the same quill knobs? So Tianyulong, the species of psittacosaurus found with tail quils and knobs, Perhaps even pegomastax,  were actually feathered then? Or is it possible that the knobs might indeed be..yes , just as described, quill knobs and not feathers?
It also seems somewhat arbitrary to an extreme to suggest that evidence of a pygostyle in a Oviraptor is reinforcement they were feathered whereas its complete absence, never once found in association with a Velociraptor or larger dromeosaur species of any kind is somehow not evidence to the contrary.
Finally as I stated rather clearly in my earlier posting, you can draw a line chart any way you wish, and place any dinosaur wherever you like, but at the end of the day, you have to take into acount there is no direct evidence for feathers in the animals you are trying to say is a known fact were feathered. Despite nearly every other type found in China to date, these animals remain unproven and therefore it is AN inference. That does not require a great deal of effort to realize or see clearly. Inference is not fact.

[Balaur]

I dismissed it because quills knobs of themselves provide no proof of feathers. They can be suggestive of such yes, but are not in themselves proof.Or if you are going to state that argument are you suggesting the animals we have evidence were quilled, were not , simply due to the same quill knobs? So Tianyulong, the species of psittacosaurus found with tail quils and knobs, Perhaps even pegomastax,  were actually feathered then? Or is it possible that the knobs might indeed be..yes , just as described, quill knobs and not feathers?
It also seems somewhat arbitrary to an extreme to suggest that evidence of a pygostyle in a Oviraptor is reinforcement they were feathered whereas its complete absence, never once found in association with a Velociraptor or larger dromeosaur species of any kind is somehow not evidence to the contrary.
Finally as I stated rather clearly in my earlier posting, you can draw a line chart any way you wish, and place any dinosaur wherever you like, but at the end of the day, you have to take into acount there is no direct evidence for feathers in the animals you are trying to say is a known fact were feathered. Despite nearly every other type found in China to date, these animals remain unproven and therefore it is AN inference. That does not require a great deal of effort to realize or see clearly. Inference is not fact.

Actually, I disagree here. The quill knobs are proof of feathers. There a differences between random bumps on an arm and quill knobs. Because of this, I think that is solid evidence of feathers on Velociraptor. You don't need actual feathers preserved to infer that Velociraptor had feathers. Also, to me, it seems extremely naive to not think Velociraptor had feathers. Dromaeosaurs are very close relatives of birds, and  the anatomy to me is very much like a bird, and looks very much like it is a feathered animal. Are you dismissing that Velociraptor had feathers? It is extremely unlikely. I can see tyrannosaurs being scaled and unfeathered, but to have dromaeosaurs without feathers is beyond me.
What is important to know is that these inferences aren't randon guesses out of someones hind quarters, they are based in evidence from other fossils, and logic. I find it illogical to say that if there are no evidence of feathers than it lacks feathers. I take the quill knobs on Velociraptor to prove that it was once speculation that it had feathers, but it was later confirmed.
Again, this isn't just a randon inference. It is a inference based off of logical thinking.

I hope I didn't say anything wrong in my peep into this discussion.

[Gwangi]

It also seems somewhat arbitrary to an extreme to suggest that evidence of a pygostyle in a Oviraptor is reinforcement they were feathered whereas its complete absence, never once found in association with a Velociraptor or larger dromeosaur species of any kind is somehow not evidence to the contrary.

Look at the fossil photographs (or the fossils themselves) of Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Archeopteryx, Anchiornis, Dilong, Yutyrannus or any of the known feathered dinosaurs that did not have a pygostyle and ask again if the lack of one in Velociraptor is evidence against feathers. Actually, I'll just post pictures for you...

Microraptor, a dromaeosaur, related to Velociraptor. No pygostyle, very feathery.


Archeopteryx.


So no, I'm sorry, your argument for no pygostyle on Velociraptor is not evidence against it being feathered. I honestly don't know why I'm arguing about this with you because clearly you don't have a complete grasp on the subject. I guess I do it because I'm tired of this resentment towards feathers on animals that were clearly feathered. I'm afraid you need to read up.

Finally as I stated rather clearly in my earlier posting, you can draw a line chart any way you wish, and place any dinosaur wherever you like, but at the end of the day, you have to take into acount there is no direct evidence for feathers in the animals you are trying to say is a known fact were feathered. Despite nearly every other type found in China to date, these animals remain unproven and therefore it is AN inference. That does not require a great deal of effort to realize or see clearly. Inference is not fact.

You wouldn't question hair on an extinct mammal even if there is no direct evidence for it. It is a given until evidence suggests otherwise. You wouldn't question scales on an extinct lizard, even if there is no direct evidence for it.  It is a given until evidence suggests otherwise. You're only doing it with Velociraptor because it has been reproduced without them for so long but this is an animal that is essentially a bird, there is no reason to think it did not have feathers. No integument has been found for Velociraptor, anywhere. The genus has not been found in the formations that has preserved so many other feathered dinosaurs so we may never find feathers for it. Regardless, we can confidently say Velociraptor had feathers because science works. Until we find evidence that it DID NOT have feathers it is safe to assume that it did given its position within theropoda and its relationship to birds and other feathered dinosaurs.

This is Archeopteryx, study it. This is what many regarded as the first bird for so long.


This is Microraptor.


This is Velociraptor. Compare with the above and tell me that is not evidence enough for feathers on this genus. It is bone for bone nearly identical to the two known feathered animals above. It is certainly not misclassified either.


If a moderator could split this topic I would much appreciate it and sorry for the derail.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I think it might serve purposes to reiterate a few things for the record here. I began my comment stating that while it would seem highly likely even probable that these animals were indeed feathered, the PROOF does not exist. IF you take the time to actually read back to my original postings I am sure it would be quite simple to verify this. I have learned that some people when responding here tend to take your stated comments and remove them from context and then argue against their newly derived meaning. I accept by definition of proof hard simple facts called fossils....dinosaurs found in the earth sediments and then studied to provide information. I do not accept speculation and guesswork based on other dinosaurs that might share common traits. It is a fools errand to even begin to suggest we have all the pieces of the fossil puzzle or can definitely nail down wether these animals were derived from birds or became birds let alone what order or what members. We can theorize yes, we can guess based on known fossils, but for now the evidence is not known . This means that you are inferring....and there is room for many errors. If there is one thing the study of dinosaurus should show it is that the view and ideas held about them are constantly changing and the trendy ideas of today, wether feathered dinosaurs or warm blooded or fluked tylosaurus, are always subject to further evidence and further study.
  You also failed to explain how dinosaurs known for a fact to be quilled also posess these much vaunted quill knobs. The reason is quite clear, it is guesswork at this point. The quilled dinosaurs that are known were preserved with their covering visible to clarify the issue. Yet when we find those same knobs on other animals that lack the preserved quills, we claim it PROOF of feathers. If you would not infer scales, and you refuse to allow they could be quills, why would you then assume they are feathers?I this not what you accused me of doing?
  So examining these animals you posted pictures of, how many actually posess the knob quills that supposedly prove beyond any doubt feathers? Unless they all posess them, given your methodology, much like the missing pygostyle, wouldnt that serve to prove the animals you know are feathered were not?It does seem to me the family story there is missing some pages and we lack a complete understanding of it all .
  I do resent being told the reasons I believe or question things, or even the inference I do when my postings suggested earlier on that it seemed highly likely they were feathered. What I did state was..where are the fossils, where is the proof. I cannot think of a paleontologist in the world that can claim they have much actual evidence to show this .I did not say I question the feathering on the animals, I stated quite clearly I question the EVIDENCE or PROOF for it.
Science does indeed work. It is the process of forming the best possible answers with the known evidence. It is not a process of guesswork and pet theories...when in doubt infer?
I keep going back to proof, not drawings, or pretty cladistic studies, but actual proof. Evidence. The things that science is made of...my original point was there is a paucity of such evidence for these animals being feathered and I doubt anyone in the paleo-community would have trouble with that comment. Normally the Carnegie museum has used much better judgement in their animals , and tried to base them on actual known fossil evidence . This was at the heart of my comments...I have always collected and maintain a complete Carnegie collection of animals with many redone as repaints. If they wish to follow this trend and produce animals that are not known to be accurate, and rely on guesswork I will be forced to rethink my own purchasing choices.
One final thought .....I do not see what I post here as an argument Gwangi. If you view a civil discusion about dinosaurs, which is indeed the purpose of this forum, as an argument, there is a misconception at work somewhere within the reasoning involved. I felt the purpose of the forum was to learn, share and discuss dinosaurs. Within the same vein, the little "digs" and insults you rely on within the postings to make your points are somewhat ......uncalled for. I am here to discuss dinosaurs and the understandings of them, and would prefer that it be kept as such, thanks.

[Patrx]

I see where you're coming from here, Amarga, honestly. But the trouble is this: If the only evidence one accepts are fossils - not educated guesses and inferences - one doesn't end up with much. In that case, all we know about Velociraptor is that it had bones. We infer that it had other organs too, because that's how animals work The fossils don't "prove" even that on their own. In a purely philosophical sense, I suppose I'd agree with you. We don't "know" that Velociraptor had feathers, and we also don't "know" it had lungs. Logically, though, the notion of either being absent is abstract enough to be safely ignored, scientifically.
My point is that studying dinosaurs tends to just start with fossils - everything else is guesswork. Really thorough, scientific guesswork. It gets updated, invalidated, and changed in other ways all the time, because, well, the Mesozoic was rather a long time ago. Good paleontologists are thrilled to be proven wrong, because it means we know something we didn't know before. However, since we'll never properly know much of anything about prehistoric dinosaurs, the best guess is as close to fact as we can get.

[wings]

...If there is one thing the study of dinosaurus should show it is that the view and ideas held about them are constantly changing and the trendy ideas of today... fluked tylosaurus, are always subject to further evidence and further study.

Talking about "tail fin" on a marine reptile, you might be interested in this article (http://dml.cmnh.org/2013Sep/msg00052.html)

  You also failed to explain how dinosaurs known for a fact to be quilled also posess these much vaunted quill knobs. The reason is quite clear, it is guesswork at this point. The quilled dinosaurs that are known were preserved with their covering visible to clarify the issue. Yet when we find those same knobs on other animals that lack the preserved quills, we claim it PROOF of feathers. If you would not infer scales, and you refuse to allow they could be quills,...

Quill knobs/nodes/tubercles could be present or absent, this depends on the species or even individual animal. In Yalden (1985), he said:"... In the wing of a modern bird, the secondaries are strongly attached to the ulna. They may attach above quite pronounced nodes, or tubercles, as they do in Pica, and also in Vanellus, Cuculus, and Picus,... the nodes maybe very slight, just discernible if a finger-nail is scraped down the ulna, or quite absent... Four skeletons of Sparrowhawk, Accipiter nisus, are particularly instructive; three have tainted nodes and the fourth, a 2 year-old male, has no evident nodes...". I kept seeing these nodes are referred to as "quill knobs" in this thread, just out of curiosity, what do you think these regularly spaced structures are? It's unlikely that they are pathological since they are evenly spread along the ulna. These seems to be served as attachment sites to secondaries in modern birds as mentioned in Yalden (above). So in your view could they be supporting something? If they do then what could it be and if not then what would be the likely function of them? Please note that I'm just trying to understand your view but not starting an argument.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Thanks for the information Wings regarding the fluke. I had met Mike Everhart, the author of the "Oceans of Kansas " website and book and he kept mentioning the fluke everyone kept wanting to give Tylosaurus and how ridiculous he found it as there was no evidence. I will have to drop him an email and see if the current thinking he offers still finds it as hard to defend. I do allow it was two years ago that I spoke to him so perhaps he has since revised his estimate.Constantly changing world we live in when it comes to these animals.
  I had stated that I do hold these animal were feathered. My issue was with the lack of fossil proof for such and the use of quill knobs in a single Chinese specimen to suggest all of them were feathered, in this family and world wide as well.It has often been stated the quills for the single Psittacosaurus found with them do not indicate the entire known pantheon of Psittacosaurs were quilled. However apparently a single specimen with quill knobs is indicative of the entire family of dromeosaurs as proof of feathers.  I guess perhaps a simpler view of what I am trying to put across is this to help you understand. Are feathers the only allowed explanation for quill knobs or are these same knobs often found in conjunction with animals that had quills rather than feathers? If such were the case, is there a discernible difference between quill knobs that served as attachment points for feathers versus ones that held quills? Do the fossils of the psittacosaurus and Tianyulong also hold quill knobs that served to attach the quills or were they just extruding from what we would assume would be the skin or scales? As that arrangement would seem abnormal it seems likely there were bases or quill knobs for the quills themselves, although we know for fact due to the fossil integument of these dinosaurs they had quills rather than feathers. In keeping with this theory or idea, could it not then be possible these animals possessed quills rather than feathers on their arms ? If they were large and flightless dromeosaurs (you will make note that I have tried to focus my comments towards the larger dromeosaurs, that we know are flightless) This is the point I am attempting to put across here and thanks for your question. Merely the idea that what are being beat about as quill knobs might very possibly have served to attach quills rather than actual feathers....still a display structure and still fitting within the definitions given for the dinosaur. This is one reason, other than the paucity of evidence for them being feathered that i was attempting to put across.
Patrx, I know this is a topic both near and dear always to you    I get your point about organs...that does leave someone to ponder a bit although we do not definitely know the internal organ structure of dinosaurs for that matter. My issue with Carnegie doing this was normally they tend to follow the fossil evidence more closely, and it feels like they sold out for a fast dollar to the feathered masses. I guess I would not have minded so much if they offered an updated version of the dinosaur in both styles even. I have collected the Carnegie set to the point of completenes, even purchasing the retired animals, most of the resculpts and repaints. I have even gone to the extent of getting a good portion of them all over as based and repainted display pieces. This piece has me considering for the first time to break that pattern sadly.
  If its any help I thought the new Tyrannosaurus was a well styled and painted piece. Not so sure I care for the pose, but I do love the colors and overall look of it.On the bright side, at least I assume you are delighted and will have your feathered "raptor" now !! Congrats on that !!

[wings]

Are feathers the only allowed explanation for quill knobs or are these same knobs often found in conjunction with animals that had quills rather than feathers? If such were the case, is there a discernible difference between quill knobs that served as attachment points for feathers versus ones that held quills?

Perhaps I've not read enough but I don't think there is another published alternative theory about the purpose of these structures apart from being the attachment area for secondary feathers. When you are talking about quills, are you referring them as something different from feathers or you are thinking that they are also feathers but at a different development stage (kind of like a stage 1?)? Without beating around the bush too much, I would say I don't know if we have a specimen with "quill knobs" on its arm having quills preserve around these area therefore I'm not sure whether there is a different.

Do the fossils of the psittacosaurus and Tianyulong also hold quill knobs that served to attach the quills or were they just extruding from what we would assume would be the skin or scales?

I think you might have understood what others are referring as "quill knobs". They are just talking about the small protrusions on the ulna. I couldn't find the Tianyulong paper so I couldn't comment on it but the psittacosaurus specimen (the one with the quills) only have these quills along its tail but not on its arms. So again I'm not sure what I can compare with...

As that arrangement would seem abnormal it seems likely there were bases or quill knobs for the quills themselves, although we know for fact due to the fossil integument of these dinosaurs they had quills rather than feathers. In keeping with this theory or idea, could it not then be possible these animals possessed quills rather than feathers on their arms ?

Similar to my first answer, all I can say is that we never have an example (modern or fossilized) with this kind of combination (quill knobs with "quills" attach to them) so for now it seems likely that these elements forms the attachment area for secondaries (again I'm just referring to the lower arms since this is where these quill knobs are found if present).

[HD-man]

The key to thinking  with Carnegie is they will not release a resculpt feathered of any kind unless there is enough fossil proof for it. To my own thinking that would make it far more likely they have redone the oviraptor or perhaps therizinosaur, or microraptor.The evidence for any forms of feathered raptors is still equivocal at best.....despite the likelihood .

You used Oviraptor as an example but there is no direct fossil evidence of feathers on Oviraptor. It is inferred that Oviraptor had them based on feathers found on related animals...like Caudipteryx. Velociraptor however does have preserved quill knobs so it actually has more evidence of feathers than Oviraptor. Despite this Safari/Carnegie has made two different sculpts of a feathered Oviraptor and there is also the one on the nest so I don't think they would shy away from feathers on Velociraptor or even Deinonychus. Also, Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus are both feathered and belong to the dromaeosaur family so the evidence for feathered "raptors" is quite strong.

This "debate" has gone on WAY too long, given what it's about. For those wondering about Velociraptor's quill knobs, the paper in question is Turner et al. 2007 ("Feather Quill Knobs in the Dinosaur Velociraptor"). The following quote from said paper makes this "debate" moot. I should also mention that  1) Psittacosaurus had quills, NOT quill knobs, & 2) we still don't know whether ornithischian quills are homologous with bird feathers (I think not, but I digress).

Quoting Turner et al. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1721.full ):

We present direct evidence of feathers in Velociraptor mongoliensis based on the presence of quill knobs on the posterior forearm. In many living birds, raised knobs along the caudal margin of the ulna reveal where the quills of the secondary feathers are anchored to the bone by follicular ligaments. Quill knobs are variably present in extant bird species and are present in only a few basal taxa such as Ichthyornis (2), so their absence does not necessarily indicate a lack of feathers. Their presence, however, is a direct indicator of feathers of modern aspect (e.g., feathers composed of a rachis and vanes formed by barbs).

[wings]

...2) we still don't know whether ornithischian quills are homologous with bird feathers (I think not, but I digress).

There might be a paper somewhere and here is a paragraph by Steve Brusatte on this page (http://www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com/news/post/did-triceratops-have-feathers-or-quills/)

"...But although these bristles are different from the feathers of living birds, scientists are confident that they are essentially the same type of structure. In other words, they are comprised of the same material and are controlled by the same basic genes. In more technical terminology, they are 'homologous' to feathers..."

It would be unusual for a scientist to make this claim unless there are some evidence behind it.