Re: Feathering proof

[Ultimatedinoking]

I find it more likely that sauropods had feathers than hadrosaurs, because, sauropods are saurischians, and the majority of feathered dinosaurs are saurischians (theropods). I think that in some species, the young were born with feathers, but lost them over time, maybe the sparse covering like an elephant, or some small patches, like on the feet. Just my personal opinion.

There have been found baby sauropods with preserved skin, they who no trace of feathers.

That was just barely explained a few posts earlier.

We'll I dint know that.

[stargatedalek]

skin/scales impressions =/= lack of feathers

[Balaur]

skin/scales impressions =/= lack of feathers

Um, no. Did you read the post explaining it?

[stargatedalek]

yes, and having scale impressions does not guarantee a lack of feathers on the animal

it seems you confused what I meant

a presence of scale or skin impressions
-
=/= (does not equal)
-
lack of feathers

[Balaur]

I did get confused. Sorry.

[stargatedalek]

thanks, and no worry

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The recent find of Kulindadromeus has me pondering a fine point in the fossil equation regarding feathered velociraptor in particular. Everyone is fairly familiar with the recent find, partially scaled and partially feathered. My question is deceptively simple.......

   Ever since the discovery of quill knobs in one wing bone of the Chinese velociraptor was discovered people have used this find as positive proof that velociraptors were feathered. What I am wondering is with the discovery of Kulndadromeus, is it possible that the evidence could suggest a reverse possibility? We now know it is fact that at least one species of dinosaur posessed both scales and feathers. It would seem likely that more will be discovered, but perhaps they already have. What if the species we are assuming were feathered, were largely scaled ? For instance, the raptor wing bone shows quill knobs which does little to suggest body covering for certain. Is it possible some dinosaurs were largely scaled and minorly feathered, and some were the reverse? Are we then assuming based on the link to birds, although the integument could be either way, given this recent find? Or is it being stated that due to the presence of quill knobs, that the dinosaur had to bear body feathers as well?
I am interested in what actual evidence or proof there is to debunk the possibility......I find it troublesome that the only integument we have for Tyrannosaurus Rex is scales, and that other dinosaurs like Carnotaurus have been recovered almost completely covered in scales. We know that at least most species of duckbill dinosaurs are found with scale impressions as well, from multiple finds. We have skin impressions from the feet of sauropods, and scale impressions from triceratops, none which suggest any type of feather at all. 
  Is there any way possible that dinosaurs from the North american land mass were in some way evolving differently than chinese counterparts? We find nearly type of dinosaur with quills or feathers in china and yet so far at least such evidence is not forthcoming for other locations. We are always told about preservational bias< however that same argument was used for years to suggest we would not find eggs or eggshell in the North American continent. Most realize now this argument is not accurate, as the findings of Jack Horner suggest. Eggs and shells are here, and I suspect if they were around, they too would be preserved here.
  I am tryin to understand why everything except the trees seemingly in China bore feathers, and we cannot find the evidence in other places. Thoughts? Ideas or papers?

[Ultimatedinoking]

I kinda agree with you on the quill knob idea, velociraptor could have had feathers limited to its arms, and maybe a couple of other places, but it was probably mostly "bald". T. rex was most likely "fuzzy" at hatching, but lost its "fuzz" at maturity. Troops was certainly featherless, but a "toxic rear" as said in some papers, is unlikely.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

So it is also suggested age might determine if some dinosaurs carried feathers or no, then?So born with fuzzy covering that becomes scales somehow or ?

[Ultimatedinoking]

So it is also suggested age might determine if some dinosaurs carried feathers or no, then?So born with fuzzy covering that becomes scales somehow or ?

I never said anything about scales. Once the "fuzz" drops off, there's only the thick skin.

[Trisdino]

Velociraptor could hypothetically have only a very limited amount of feathers.


It seems very unlikely though.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Velociraptor could hypothetically have only a very limited amount of feathers.


It seems very unlikely though.

As unlikely as bald apes driving metallic pods?

[Patrx]

Well, I don't pretend to a proper expert, I think I might be able to point out a few things here. Kulindadromeus is an ornithischian. The link between the fuzz it bore and proper theropod feathers, like those on Velociraptor, is poorly understood at this point. They're two very different kinds of dinosaur, and their integuments seem to have been very different. Kulindadromeus had simple filaments, similar to the ones found on Tianyulong and Psittacosaurus, but it also had odd, branching structures, a type of fuzz that's not been found before. We need more fossils, and more study, before we begin to understand how these structures relate to feathers.
As for Velociraptor, the identification of quill knobs wasn't nearly as revolutionary as the media made it seem. The case for feathers in dromaeosaurs is largely based on cladistic analyses, and was essentially certain before that find was published. While the origin and development of feathers is still a bit murky, we know enough about maniraptorans to understand where Velociraptor's feathers would have been in life. We have taxa like Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, and Archaeopteryx to thank for that. As of last year, we even have impressions from an ornithomimid showing the same basic wing feather pattern we predict for Velociraptor - implying that such "wings" were somewhat widespread.

The trouble with finding feather remains in North America is that the sediment at these sites rarely allows for it. Generally, you find feathered fossils in lagerstätten, a type of very fine deposit. Mesozoic lagerstätten sites from the Mesozoic have been found places like Russia, China, Germany, and South America, but not in North America (with a few exceptions like the Triassic Ghost Ranch). The aforementioned ornithomimusaur feathers were observed in the Hell Creek formation, however. I recall that they were very faint and would generally have been overlooked, but it does make me wonder what other traces could be found now that we know more about what to look for. You mention eggshells, but of course those are rather tougher than feathers, and less prone to severe displacement over time. The same applies to "scales" or "scutes"

I would like to know more about these "tyrannosaur scale impressions", as I generally hear paleontologists discuss them in an offhand way as though the finds have not yet been properly written up.

In any case Kulindadromeus does raise some interesting questions, especially with regard to integument.

[Trisdino]

All of the known maniraptorans with feather impressions seem to have them on almost all of their bodies, the same goes for many other closely related lineages. Statistically, the odd that one specific well known dromeosaur from late cretaceous mongolia should just happen to break the mold and directly contradict what phylogenetic bracketing has thus far told us about them are so low as to be irrelevant.

[Ultimatedinoking]

All of the known maniraptorans with feather impressions seem to have them on almost all of their bodies, the same goes for many other closely related lineages. Statistically, the odd that one specific well known dromeosaur from late cretaceous mongolia should just happen to break the mold and directly contradict what phylogenetic bracketing has thus far told us about them are so low as to be irrelevant.

What about humans (genus homo) breaking the bracket by being the only ape (and primate) to have lost most of its hair?

[Gwangi]

Is there any way possible that dinosaurs from the North american land mass were in some way evolving differently than chinese counterparts? We find nearly type of dinosaur with quills or feathers in china and yet so far at least such evidence is not forthcoming for other locations. We are always told about preservational bias< however that same argument was used for years to suggest we would not find eggs or eggshell in the North American continent. Most realize now this argument is not accurate, as the findings of Jack Horner suggest. Eggs and shells are here, and I suspect if they were around, they too would be preserved here.
  I am tryin to understand why everything except the trees seemingly in China bore feathers, and we cannot find the evidence in other places. Thoughts? Ideas or papers?

I'm not a geologist or paleontologist but I really think preservation bias is the answer here. China is not the only site to preserve feathers keep in mind. This new site in Russia, also Solnhofen in Germany. The Mesozoic fossil sites in North America that we've found so far just don't preserve animals the same way. Notice I specified Mesozoic fossil sites, because there are other fossil sites in North America that preserve plants and animals in a similar way, they're just not Mesozoic plants and animals. One of the most famous sites in North America and for the Eocene in particular is the Green River formation.

Here is a bird from the Green River formation.


So again, sites do exist here like those in China, just not from the Mesozoic. Maybe there is one we have not found yet. I strongly doubt evolutionary pressure in Asia vs. North America was so different that related and unrelated animals on separate continents would independently lose or evolve feather-like body coverings, especially since for much of the Mesozoic animals could move back and forth between the two.

Velociraptor in particular is VERY close to birds on the family tree. Some might argue the animal itself is in fact a bird. Could it have lost its feathers? Sure. Is it likely? No. Is there any evidence to suggest it? No. So we can speculate all we want but what makes more sense here. That Velociraptor, a very bird-like animal with known relatives cloaked in feathers also had feathers or that for some unexplainable reason independently lost them? Personally I think any attempt to deny Velociraptor its feathers is simply an attempt to cling on to the pop-culture animal depicted in "Jurassic Park" or other media. It's not realistic and until evidence is found to suggest otherwise the null hypothesis should be that it was a fully feathered animal.

As for the other dinosaurs, that's more up in the air. Scale preservation would seem more common than feather preservation which makes sense because the nature of scales seem better suited to preservation. It would seem that Tyrannosaurus had feathers because of its placement on the family tree but as it stands I have no personal qualms about depicting it without them. Carnotaurus is farther removed from birds so the notion of feathers is less well supported. Only time will tell who truly had feathers, scales, both or something else. It's an exciting time to be into dinosaur paleontology. Were Velociraptor is concerned though, I think we can close the book for the time being until evidence suggests otherwise.

[Patrx]

What about humans (genus homo) breaking the bracket by being the only ape (and primate) to have lost most of its hair?

We still have our hair. according to Schwartz & Rosenblum (1981) our hair follicles are distributed at the sort of density expected for an ape of our size. It is unusually fine hair, overall.

[Ultimatedinoking]

What about humans (genus homo) breaking the bracket by being the only ape (and primate) to have lost most of its hair?

We still have our hair. according to Schwartz & Rosenblum (1981) our hair follicles are distributed at the sort of density expected for an ape of our size. It is unusually fine hair, overall.

I know, but I ment Homo is less covered than other apes, so there is a tiny possibility that velociraptor or another dromaeosaur broke the feather pattern.

[Gwangi]

All of the known maniraptorans with feather impressions seem to have them on almost all of their bodies, the same goes for many other closely related lineages. Statistically, the odd that one specific well known dromeosaur from late cretaceous mongolia should just happen to break the mold and directly contradict what phylogenetic bracketing has thus far told us about them are so low as to be irrelevant.

What about humans (genus homo) breaking the bracket by being the only ape (and primate) to have lost most of its hair?

A rare exception clearly, given that every other extant primate has hair (so do we honestly). You can play "what ifs" all you want but without evidence all you're doing is attempting to cling onto an outdated view of the animal. We know all of Velociraptor's closest relatives were feathered and it was very closely related to birds. We have preserved quill knobs for the genus. It is preserved in a sediment that won't yield actual feathers. If you know how to do science you'll come up with the same conclusion as every other sensible person, that Velociraptor was a feathered animal. I cannot think of a single professional who doubts it. Only JP fanboys.

[Ultimatedinoking]

All of the known maniraptorans with feather impressions seem to have them on almost all of their bodies, the same goes for many other closely related lineages. Statistically, the odd that one specific well known dromeosaur from late cretaceous mongolia should just happen to break the mold and directly contradict what phylogenetic bracketing has thus far told us about them are so low as to be irrelevant.

What about humans (genus homo) breaking the bracket by being the only ape (and primate) to have lost most of its hair?

A rare exception clearly, given that every other extant primate has hair (so do we honestly). You can play "what ifs" all you want but without evidence all you're doing is attempting to cling onto an outdated view of the animal. We know all of Velociraptor's closest relatives were feathered and it was very closely related to birds. We have preserved quill knobs for the genus. It is preserved in a sediment that won't yield actual feathers. If you know how to do science you'll come up with the same conclusion as every other sensible person, that Velociraptor was a feathered animal. I cannot think of a single professional who doubts it. Only JP fanboys.

I can think of more exceptions...