Re: Feathering proof

[Ultimatedinoking]

I believe in fuzzy sauropods. Yes, I just said that.

Not heavily fuzzy sauropods, of course not, but something akin to an elephant, with a thin covering of protofuzz. And no, that is not unrealistic, or even unprobable, phylogenetic bracketing makes fuzz basal to all dinosaurs, possibly even all achrosaurs, so it seems logical to assume that they had at least some amount of fuzz. Then again, I also belive in fuzzy ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs, and all other forms of dinosaurs. Hell, I would propose a primitive achrosaur, basal to both crocodiles, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs, which is bipedal and covered in fuzz. This fuzz was eventually lost in crocodilyforms, but retained in pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

Actually, that is a good point. Sauropods could well have had sparse feathers.

Ultimatedinoking: Even if pterosaur pycnofibers evolved independently from feathers, it is quite clear that some form of filaments were basal to Dinosauria.

This might be relevant: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-feathered-siberia-dinosaur-scales-science/

If the most basal archosaurs had feathers, why do we not find them? Many archosaurs are known to have had armored hides or scales, and you don't see alligators with plumes, do you?

Back to pycnofibers, has anyone thought that they might be byproducts of decay? The remnants of fat depositions? Once a beluga washed on shore and rotted, the carcass soon was covered in a "fuzz" leading people to believe it was a "monster" or weirdly a mosasaur.

[Dinoguy2]

I believe in fuzzy sauropods. Yes, I just said that.

Not heavily fuzzy sauropods, of course not, but something akin to an elephant, with a thin covering of protofuzz. And no, that is not unrealistic, or even unprobable, phylogenetic bracketing makes fuzz basal to all dinosaurs, possibly even all achrosaurs, so it seems logical to assume that they had at least some amount of fuzz. Then again, I also belive in fuzzy ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs, and all other forms of dinosaurs. Hell, I would propose a primitive achrosaur, basal to both crocodiles, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs, which is bipedal and covered in fuzz. This fuzz was eventually lost in crocodilyforms, but retained in pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

Actually, that is a good point. Sauropods could well have had sparse feathers.

Ultimatedinoking: Even if pterosaur pycnofibers evolved independently from feathers, it is quite clear that some form of filaments were basal to Dinosauria.

This might be relevant: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-feathered-siberia-dinosaur-scales-science/

If the most basal archosaurs had feathers, why do we not find them? Many archosaurs are known to have had armored hides or scales, and you don't see alligators with plumes, do you?

Back to pycnofibers, has anyone thought that they might be byproducts of decay? The remnants of fat depositions? Once a beluga washed on shore and rotted, the carcass soon was covered in a "fuzz" leading people to believe it was a "monster" or weirdly a mosasaur.

First, even Kulindadromeus has croc scutes on parts of its body. Second, even if the archosaurian ancestor had feathers, that doesn't mean 100% of later archosaurs did. They could have reduced the fluff and retained the scutes or retained the fluff and reduced the scutes, or lost both (hadrosaurs don't have scutes, despite both Kulindadromeus, Triceratops, crocs, and birds having scutes, but nobody ever brings that up...).

[Ultimatedinoking]

I believe in fuzzy sauropods. Yes, I just said that.

Not heavily fuzzy sauropods, of course not, but something akin to an elephant, with a thin covering of protofuzz. And no, that is not unrealistic, or even unprobable, phylogenetic bracketing makes fuzz basal to all dinosaurs, possibly even all achrosaurs, so it seems logical to assume that they had at least some amount of fuzz. Then again, I also belive in fuzzy ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs, and all other forms of dinosaurs. Hell, I would propose a primitive achrosaur, basal to both crocodiles, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs, which is bipedal and covered in fuzz. This fuzz was eventually lost in crocodilyforms, but retained in pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

Actually, that is a good point. Sauropods could well have had sparse feathers.

Ultimatedinoking: Even if pterosaur pycnofibers evolved independently from feathers, it is quite clear that some form of filaments were basal to Dinosauria.

This might be relevant: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-feathered-siberia-dinosaur-scales-science/

If the most basal archosaurs had feathers, why do we not find them? Many archosaurs are known to have had armored hides or scales, and you don't see alligators with plumes, do you?

Back to pycnofibers, has anyone thought that they might be byproducts of decay? The remnants of fat depositions? Once a beluga washed on shore and rotted, the carcass soon was covered in a "fuzz" leading people to believe it was a "monster" or weirdly a mosasaur.

First, even Kulindadromeus has croc scutes on parts of its body. Second, even if the archosaurian ancestor had feathers, that doesn't mean 100% of later archosaurs did. They could have reduced the fluff and retained the scutes or retained the fluff and reduced the scutes, or lost both (hadrosaurs don't have scutes, despite both Kulindadromeus, Triceratops, crocs, and birds having scutes, but nobody ever brings that up...).

I can't tell, are you agreeing with me?

[stargatedalek]

crocodile genetics show signs that their ancestors may well have been feathered/had some form of integument
its worth noting that crocodile scutes and scales are also unlike those of other "basic lineage" reptiles

[Ultimatedinoking]

crocodile genetics show signs that their ancestors may well have been feathered/had some form of integument
its worth noting that crocodile scutes and scales are also unlike those of other "basic lineage" reptiles

Do you have a link to the paper?

It helps prove my point that some theropods could have lost feathers.

[Dinoguy2]

I believe in fuzzy sauropods. Yes, I just said that.

Not heavily fuzzy sauropods, of course not, but something akin to an elephant, with a thin covering of protofuzz. And no, that is not unrealistic, or even unprobable, phylogenetic bracketing makes fuzz basal to all dinosaurs, possibly even all achrosaurs, so it seems logical to assume that they had at least some amount of fuzz. Then again, I also belive in fuzzy ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs, and all other forms of dinosaurs. Hell, I would propose a primitive achrosaur, basal to both crocodiles, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs, which is bipedal and covered in fuzz. This fuzz was eventually lost in crocodilyforms, but retained in pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

Actually, that is a good point. Sauropods could well have had sparse feathers.

Ultimatedinoking: Even if pterosaur pycnofibers evolved independently from feathers, it is quite clear that some form of filaments were basal to Dinosauria.

This might be relevant: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-feathered-siberia-dinosaur-scales-science/

If the most basal archosaurs had feathers, why do we not find them? Many archosaurs are known to have had armored hides or scales, and you don't see alligators with plumes, do you?

Back to pycnofibers, has anyone thought that they might be byproducts of decay? The remnants of fat depositions? Once a beluga washed on shore and rotted, the carcass soon was covered in a "fuzz" leading people to believe it was a "monster" or weirdly a mosasaur.

First, even Kulindadromeus has croc scutes on parts of its body. Second, even if the archosaurian ancestor had feathers, that doesn't mean 100% of later archosaurs did. They could have reduced the fluff and retained the scutes or retained the fluff and reduced the scutes, or lost both (hadrosaurs don't have scutes, despite both Kulindadromeus, Triceratops, crocs, and birds having scutes, but nobody ever brings that up...).

I can't tell, are you agreeing with me?

I'm saying feather/scales/scutes is not either/or. It's entirely possible many if not most archosaurs had both. Crocs could simply be weird because they're primarily aquatic.

We have pycnifibres impressing that show them clearly above/stemming from skin impressions, so they're not collagen. Lingam-Solier has argued that the feathers of Sinosauropteryx are actually frayed collagen as you describe, but this effect only happens in marine animals with thick, fat laden skin as you saw. Therefore Lingam-Solier thinks compsognathids were fully aquatic and had fins like newts. Nobody else thinks his evidence is compelling. Nobody has thought pterosaurs were aquatic since 1809, so it's unlikely to be the result of degraded thick, fatty skin

[stargatedalek]

crocodile genetics show signs that their ancestors may well have been feathered/had some form of integument
its worth noting that crocodile scutes and scales are also unlike those of other "basic lineage" reptiles

Do you have a link to the paper?

It helps prove my point that some theropods could have lost feathers.

other than aquatic theropods I can't imagine how
crocodilians (assuming they had integument) only lost it because they became aquatic

sorry I was unable to find the paper I meant, this one touches on it
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15637693

[Trisdino]

Again, I am probably the of the most extreme people on this "issue". I believe that fuzz was ancestral to all groups of dinosaurs, now that is not all that contriversal, but I also believe that they did not all loose them. In a group the size of, say, sauropods, it is very unlikely that they all completely lost their fuzz(I do not want to call them feathers, because they kinda are not). They may have mostly lost them, that is realistic, but in the timespan presented, I cannot see a good reason for them to have completely lost them. Sauropods with fuzzy tail tips for display, or manes, seem likely to me.

Then again, I also believe in a hypothetical small bipedal fuzzy basal archosaur existing in the early triassic.

[Dinoguy2]

Again, I am probably the of the most extreme people on this "issue". I believe that fuzz was ancestral to all groups of dinosaurs, now that is not all that contriversal, but I also believe that they did not all loose them. In a group the size of, say, sauropods, it is very unlikely that they all completely lost their fuzz(I do not want to call them feathers, because they kinda are not). They may have mostly lost them, that is realistic, but in the timespan presented, I cannot see a good reason for them to have completely lost them. Sauropods with fuzzy tail tips for display, or manes, seem likely to me.

Then again, I also believe in a hypothetical small bipedal fuzzy basal archosaur existing in the early triassic.

Somebody other than David Peters should have a look at this specimen... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosesaurus

Inititially reported to have feathers, disregarded by others, but new finds make that somewhat more likely. Exactly the same thing happened with pterosaurs, which were reported to have "hair" in 1831 but disregarded until the discovery of Sirdes in the 1970s.

[Trisdino]

I cannot help but notice that you were the last one who edited that article. What did you change?

[Dinoguy2]

I cannot help but notice that you were the last one who edited that article. What did you change?

Hmm, that was last year, but checking the page history shows I was formatting the info box.

[Ultimatedinoking]

I believe in fuzzy sauropods. Yes, I just said that.

Not heavily fuzzy sauropods, of course not, but something akin to an elephant, with a thin covering of protofuzz. And no, that is not unrealistic, or even unprobable, phylogenetic bracketing makes fuzz basal to all dinosaurs, possibly even all achrosaurs, so it seems logical to assume that they had at least some amount of fuzz. Then again, I also belive in fuzzy ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs, and all other forms of dinosaurs. Hell, I would propose a primitive achrosaur, basal to both crocodiles, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs, which is bipedal and covered in fuzz. This fuzz was eventually lost in crocodilyforms, but retained in pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

Actually, that is a good point. Sauropods could well have had sparse feathers.

Ultimatedinoking: Even if pterosaur pycnofibers evolved independently from feathers, it is quite clear that some form of filaments were basal to Dinosauria.

This might be relevant: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-feathered-siberia-dinosaur-scales-science/

If the most basal archosaurs had feathers, why do we not find them? Many archosaurs are known to have had armored hides or scales, and you don't see alligators with plumes, do you?

Back to pycnofibers, has anyone thought that they might be byproducts of decay? The remnants of fat depositions? Once a beluga washed on shore and rotted, the carcass soon was covered in a "fuzz" leading people to believe it was a "monster" or weirdly a mosasaur.

First, even Kulindadromeus has croc scutes on parts of its body. Second, even if the archosaurian ancestor had feathers, that doesn't mean 100% of later archosaurs did. They could have reduced the fluff and retained the scutes or retained the fluff and reduced the scutes, or lost both (hadrosaurs don't have scutes, despite both Kulindadromeus, Triceratops, crocs, and birds having scutes, but nobody ever brings that up...).

I can't tell, are you agreeing with me?

I'm saying feather/scales/scutes is not either/or. It's entirely possible many if not most archosaurs had both. Crocs could simply be weird because they're primarily aquatic.

We have pycnifibres impressing that show them clearly above/stemming from skin impressions, so they're not collagen. Lingam-Solier has argued that the feathers of Sinosauropteryx are actually frayed collagen as you describe, but this effect only happens in marine animals with thick, fat laden skin as you saw. Therefore Lingam-Solier thinks compsognathids were fully aquatic and had fins like newts. Nobody else thinks his evidence is compelling. Nobody has thought pterosaurs were aquatic since 1809, so it's unlikely to be the result of degraded thick, fatty skin

Humans are weird because they walk with a vertical spine.

I see, we'll then, oops.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Again, I am probably the of the most extreme people on this "issue". I believe that fuzz was ancestral to all groups of dinosaurs, now that is not all that contriversal, but I also believe that they did not all loose them. In a group the size of, say, sauropods, it is very unlikely that they all completely lost their fuzz(I do not want to call them feathers, because they kinda are not). They may have mostly lost them, that is realistic, but in the timespan presented, I cannot see a good reason for them to have completely lost them. Sauropods with fuzzy tail tips for display, or manes, seem likely to me.

Then again, I also believe in a hypothetical small bipedal fuzzy basal archosaur existing in the early triassic.

About the timespan issue... Snakes lost their legs in a few million years, and that change would be even more genetically extreme then simply dropping your coat. Archosaurs had plenty of time.

[stargatedalek]

I like the idea of sauropods having display structures on their heads or tails, or sparse coverings
as crocodiles show just because an animal has the genetic capacity for feathers does not necessarily mean it had them, but it does mean it would be fairly simple (comparatively) for the animals within that group to loose or gain such features

[Yutyrannus]

I like the idea of sauropods having display structures on their heads or tails, or sparse coverings
as crocodiles show just because an animal has the genetic capacity for feathers does not necessarily mean it had them, but it does mean it would be fairly simple (comparatively) for the animals within that group to loose or gain such features

Chances are crocodiliformes never had feathers, pterosaurs and dinosaurs are the only members of Ornithodira. It is likely that their feathered ancestor was a primitive ornithodire, rather than just a primitive archosaur.

[Ultimatedinoking]

I like the idea of sauropods having display structures on their heads or tails, or sparse coverings
as crocodiles show just because an animal has the genetic capacity for feathers does not necessarily mean it had them, but it does mean it would be fairly simple (comparatively) for the animals within that group to loose or gain such features

Now I'm lost, your talking about saurofuzz and then going on to say feathers were easily lost?

[stargatedalek]

I was saying from an artistic perspective I like the idea that sauropods could have had light feathering

and then saying that just because all dinosaurs had the genetic capacity of feathers/integument, doe not mean they necessarily had feathers (since crocodiles also possess said genes and yet they lack feathers)

[Yutyrannus]

I was saying from an artistic perspective I like the idea that sauropods could have had light feathering

and then saying that just because all dinosaurs had the genetic capacity of feathers/integument, doe not mean they necessarily had feathers (since crocodiles also possess said genes and yet they lack feathers)

As I just said crocodiles probably did not have a feathered ancestor.

[Trisdino]

Crocodiles had reasons for loosing them, dinosaurs did not. Archosaurs, but especially birds, are very dependent on visual communication, to which feathers are excellent. The concept of sauropods retaining feathers, but using them for display and nothing else seems fully reasonable to me.

[Yutyrannus]

Crocodiles had reasons for loosing them, dinosaurs did not. Archosaurs, but especially birds, are very dependent on visual communication, to which feathers are excellent. The concept of sauropods retaining feathers, but using them for display and nothing else seems fully reasonable to me.

Again, as I was saying the feathered ancestor of both dinosaurs and pterosaurs was likely a primitive ornithodire, a group that excludes crocodiliformes. Therefore crocodilians would never have had any feathers to lose.