Re: Feathering proof

[Trisdino]

Then list them, do not just claim to have some. It does not matter anyway, if humans are one mostly hairless groups out of the entire ape family tree, that still makes the odds of an ape not having dense fur very, very small. Not to mention, we do not even know that this applies to feathers, no birds, even if they are flightless, have ever lost most of their feathers.

Again, technically yes, velociraptor COULD have lacked feathers on most of its body, but the odds of that are so small as to be comparable to fantasy. Within all forms of reason and science, velociraptor was fully feathered, saying otherwise is nothing but a display of ignorance or oddly misplaced wishful thinking.

[stargatedalek]

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.

NO NO NO
slow down with the crazy

velociraptor having feathers is supported by lineage as well as by "feather knobs"
so no, it is not "most likely" velociraptor was mostly bald, its incredibly unlikely

this "lost its fuzz/fluff as it grew up" again, I hear people claim this all the time (especially in the case of tyrannosaurus) but there is no evidence that this is even vaguely plausible, no animal is known to do this, this is insane, its inventing an entirely alien concept just to keep a hold of your precious retro tyrannosaurus

please explain what you mean by "troops"?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

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.

Very solid answers Gwangi and thaks for that . I did wish to ask something regarding the response I am not clear on if you might adress it. You  stated that velociraptor would have to have lost its feathers.....suggesting the dinosaur was feathered prior to becoming a velociraptor I would guess. Are the other feathered relatives more basal to this species or more evoloved? In other words, where in time do we place the other dinosaurs that were feathered and closely related to it, timewise, to determine this would be a case of losing the feathers or not having acquired yet? Is the inference from the science that the feathered condition would predate this set of feathered dinosaurs being descended from a common ancestor then or are the other known types more derived?
  The answer about Mesozoic sites actually makes great sense. We just lack an open window to the given time we need with the correct preservation , which might just be possible as a reason. That makes better sense than species here not being feathered while those in china were.

I appreciate the answers Gwangi, more for me to contemplate for sure.

[Trisdino]

There have been basal dinosaurs with fuzz, yes, and definitely earlier feathered dinosaurs... such as birds, and ya know, most other dromeosaurids.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Then list them, do not just claim to have some. It does not matter anyway, if humans are one mostly hairless groups out of the entire ape family tree, that still makes the odds of an ape not having dense fur very, very small. Not to mention, we do not even know that this applies to feathers, no birds, even if they are flightless, have ever lost most of their feathers.

Again, technically yes, velociraptor COULD have lacked feathers on most of its body, but the odds of that are so small as to be comparable to fantasy. Within all forms of reason and science, velociraptor was fully feathered, saying otherwise is nothing but a display of ignorance or oddly misplaced wishful thinking.

Ok.

A fruit bat that can echolocate (using its tounge)

Moa have completely lost their arms, no hint of them are left. No other glorified dinosaur has reduced arms to this extent.

Ttops is the only chasmosaur with a solid frill.

Narwhals with their megatooth

Orangutans, only orange ape

Only one species of lungless frog.

[Trisdino]

What exactly are those examples of?

[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.

NO NO NO
slow down with the crazy

velociraptor having feathers is supported by lineage as well as by "feather knobs"
so no, it is not "most likely" velociraptor was mostly bald, its incredibly unlikely

this "lost its fuzz/fluff as it grew up" again, I hear people claim this all the time (especially in the case of tyrannosaurus) but there is no evidence that this is even vaguely plausible, no animal is known to do this, this is insane, its inventing an entirely alien concept just to keep a hold of your precious retro tyrannosaurus

please explain what you mean by "troops"?

Autocorrect, I ment Ttops, my shortened name for triceratops.

Tadpoles to frogs, glorified dinosaurs loose their down, just turn off the gene for feathers, ta da! Bald adult.

[Ultimatedinoking]

What exactly are those examples of?

Exceptions to rules. Velociraptor could have been less feathered than other Dromaeosaurs.

[Trisdino]

It could, but as I said, that is irrelevant. We could hypothetically find a new species of bird which had lost all of the feathers on its backs, and was flightless, living in the middle of the amazon rainforest. Does that seem likely? No, probably not. I do not care if we can not exclude that Velociraptor did not have featherless areas, we can also not prove a god, but we can pile enough evidence against it for that point to be mute.

Honestly, why contest it? You can not prove that brachiosaurus did not have a huge skin flap on the tip of its nose, shaped like a balloon, which just hang there and flapped around with no purpose, but it seems very odd and unlikely, so we ignore it as a possibility.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

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.

NO NO NO
slow down with the crazy

velociraptor having feathers is supported by lineage as well as by "feather knobs"
so no, it is not "most likely" velociraptor was mostly bald, its incredibly unlikely

this "lost its fuzz/fluff as it grew up" again, I hear people claim this all the time (especially in the case of tyrannosaurus) but there is no evidence that this is even vaguely plausible, no animal is known to do this, this is insane, its inventing an entirely alien concept just to keep a hold of your precious retro tyrannosaurus

please explain what you mean by "troops"?

I was trying to work at this with fossil evidence Dalek, not so much the cladistics and inferred relationships with birds. I recognize those points and understand them, but I like chasing things based on actual fossils and proven evidence more than theory and cladistics myself. I quite understand the actual idea of feathered dinosaurs, I am trying to get at the preservation aspects and what we have and dont and why. I guess that comes from owning quite a bit of dinosaur material myself, but I do my work the hard way, rather than accepting what is written at face value. Most of what you are saying is quite accurate and valid yes...but it misses the fossil proof or reasons for lack of that I am trying to understand is all.
  In that context, the argument about velociraptors comes up with one species that has quill knobs, and many of its relatives being found feathered. it does allow the possibility of a partial feather and scale type dinosaur like Kulin just based on that. Unlikely indeed but possible? yes...and a month ago people would have argued that Kulin being from the other side of the dinosaur family tree would be found with both types of integument. The old adage...man proposes and nature disposes is generally accurate with any pet theory. So I am chasing down the fossil record, and why we lack it as support for this type of dinosaur
   As far as the lost fluff argument, it has its weak points but it is trying to answer why we have adult rex fossil with scales and yet all of those lovely theories and cladistics suggest it should be feathered.  That being said, since the scales are from the neck, it is entirely possible this dinosaur was also a mix like Kulindradroemus itself. i ask to try and get discussion and learn more about the various asoects. From that viewpoint it is not craziness, it is learning at least for me.

[Ultimatedinoking]

It could, but as I said, that is irrelevant. We could hypothetically find a new species of bird which had lost all of the feathers on its backs, and was flightless, living in the middle of the amazon rainforest. Does that seem likely? No, probably not. I do not care if we can not exclude that Velociraptor did not have featherless areas, we can also not prove a god, but we can pile enough evidence against it for that point to be mute.

Honestly, why contest it? You can not prove that brachiosaurus did not have a huge skin flap on the tip of its nose, shaped like a balloon, which just hang there and flapped around with no purpose, but it seems very odd and unlikely, so we ignore it as a possibility.

Have you seen all yesterdays, it preposes some weird stuff... Like allosaur throat balloons.

[Trisdino]

All yesterdays is plausible but not proven, mostly featherless raptors is unplausible, and not proven.


Just because we do not have direct evidence for A, nor direct evidence for B, does not mean that A and B are equally likely.

[stargatedalek]

I was trying to work at this with fossil evidence Dalek, not so much the cladistics and inferred relationships with birds. I recognize those points and understand them, but I like chasing things based on actual fossils and proven evidence more than theory and cladistics myself. I quite understand the actual idea of feathered dinosaurs, I am trying to get at the preservation aspects and what we have and dont and why. I guess that comes from owning quite a bit of dinosaur material myself, but I do my work the hard way, rather than accepting what is written at face value. Most of what you are saying is quite accurate and valid yes...but it misses the fossil proof or reasons for lack of that I am trying to understand is all.
  In that context, the argument about velociraptors comes up with one species that has quill knobs, and many of its relatives being found feathered. it does allow the possibility of a partial feather and scale type dinosaur like Kulin just based on that. Unlikely indeed but possible? yes...and a month ago people would have argued that Kulin being from the other side of the dinosaur family tree would be found with both types of integument. The old adage...man proposes and nature disposes is generally accurate with any pet theory. So I am chasing down the fossil record, and why we lack it as support for this type of dinosaur
   As far as the lost fluff argument, it has its weak points but it is trying to answer why we have adult rex fossil with scales and yet all of those lovely theories and cladistics suggest it should be feathered.  That being said, since the scales are from the neck, it is entirely possible this dinosaur was also a mix like Kulindradroemus itself. i ask to try and get discussion and learn more about the various asoects. From that viewpoint it is not craziness, it is learning at least for me.

very well stated
I can understand wanting to be able to base everything directly and certainly, but sadly thats not often an option so we have to settle for cladistics

Have you seen all yesterdays, it preposes some weird stuff... Like allosaur throat balloons.

which is the point of All Yesterdays, to purpose possible yet weird stuff

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Patrx, in response to your question about the rex with scales, it was WyRex, that had the scale impressions most often mentioned,. A few other finds have minor patches, but the Wyrex specimen had a nice large patch recovered near the neck of the dinosaur. Here is the only picture I have, but knowing the find and so forth I am sure you can nail it down better.



Unsure if Wyrex has been written up yet, but I dont think anyone is disputing or denying this evidence as accurate at this time at least. I do know it still remains a possibility scales and reathers together on the same animal, but we can state that so far the only recovered north american integument is indeed scales.

[Ultimatedinoking]

All yesterdays is plausible but not proven, mostly featherless raptors is unplausible, and not proven.


Just because we do not have direct evidence for A, nor direct evidence for B, does not mean that A and B are equally likely.

So it's possible  to have stegosaurs with, um, huge things. But bald dromeosaurs is not likely?

Ya, that has so many flaws

[Gwangi]

Very solid answers Gwangi and thaks for that . I did wish to ask something regarding the response I am not clear on if you might adress it. You  stated that velociraptor would have to have lost its feathers.....suggesting the dinosaur was feathered prior to becoming a velociraptor I would guess. Are the other feathered relatives more basal to this species or more evoloved? In other words, where in time do we place the other dinosaurs that were feathered and closely related to it, timewise, to determine this would be a case of losing the feathers or not having acquired yet? Is the inference from the science that the feathered condition would predate this set of feathered dinosaurs being descended from a common ancestor then or are the other known types more derived?
  The answer about Mesozoic sites actually makes great sense. We just lack an open window to the given time we need with the correct preservation , which might just be possible as a reason. That makes better sense than species here not being feathered while those in china were.

I appreciate the answers Gwangi, more for me to contemplate for sure.

No problem, I just hope I made sense. So in the case of Velociraptor we're dealing with an animal firmly rooted in the Dromaeosaur family tree. These animals are about as close as you can get to being a bird without being a bird. The newly described Changyuraptor, Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus are all dromaeosaurs preserved with feathers. Dromaeosaurs are one group within the larger group Coelurosauria which is literally all dinosaurs more closely related to birds than to other theropods. Within this group you have your Ornithomimids, Oviraptors, Therizinosaurs, Compsognathids and yes...the Tyrannosaurids. So yes, Tyrannosaurus itself is more closely related to a hummingbird than it is to Allosaurus despite the superficial similarity. We know this by looking at the derived characteristics of each group. Tyrannosaurus is far more bird-like internally than you would imagine. It shares that many more features in common with birds than theropods outside of Coelurosauria. So while Allosaurus might have "A, B, C" in common with birds, Tyrannosaurus would have "A, B, C, D, E, F" in common with birds and Velociraptor would have "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K" in common with birds. It's a simplification but I hope it makes sense.

The most basel members of this group would seem to be the Compsognathids for which we do have feather evidence. In fact, we have evidence for feathers on members of all the Coelurosaur groups so naturally it would seem the ancestor to this group was also feathered before the separate groups diverged and took feather evolution with them. This is how we know Velociraptor had feathers. Not only is it in a group more closely related to birds than to other theropod dinosaurs but it is also a dromaeosaur which as a group is more closely related to birds than they are to any other dinosaur group. In fact, birds along with dromaeosaurs make up their own group known as Paraves or "all dinosaurs which are more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs". So you guessed it, Velociraptor has more in common with modern birds than with even the very bird-like Oviraptors. So you can see (I hope) just how birdy Velociraptor really was and that it just makes no logical sense to assume it was a featherless animal.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Very solid answers Gwangi and thaks for that . I did wish to ask something regarding the response I am not clear on if you might adress it. You  stated that velociraptor would have to have lost its feathers.....suggesting the dinosaur was feathered prior to becoming a velociraptor I would guess. Are the other feathered relatives more basal to this species or more evoloved? In other words, where in time do we place the other dinosaurs that were feathered and closely related to it, timewise, to determine this would be a case of losing the feathers or not having acquired yet? Is the inference from the science that the feathered condition would predate this set of feathered dinosaurs being descended from a common ancestor then or are the other known types more derived?
  The answer about Mesozoic sites actually makes great sense. We just lack an open window to the given time we need with the correct preservation , which might just be possible as a reason. That makes better sense than species here not being feathered while those in china were.

I appreciate the answers Gwangi, more for me to contemplate for sure.

No problem, I just hope I made sense. So in the case of Velociraptor we're dealing with an animal firmly rooted in the Dromaeosaur family tree. These animals are about as close as you can get to being a bird without being a bird. The newly described Changyuraptor, Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus are all dromaeosaurs preserved with feathers. Dromaeosaurs are one group within the larger group Coelurosauria which is literally all dinosaurs more closely related to birds than to other theropods. Within this group you have your Ornithomimids, Oviraptors, Therizinosaurs, Compsognathids and yes...the Tyrannosaurids. So yes, Tyrannosaurus itself is more closely related to a hummingbird than it is to Allosaurus despite the superficial similarity. We know this by looking at the derived characteristics of each group. Tyrannosaurus is far more bird-like internally than you would imagine. It shares that many more features in common with birds than theropods outside of Coelurosauria. So while Allosaurus might have "A, B, C" in common with birds, Tyrannosaurus would have "A, B, C, D, E, F" in common with birds and Velociraptor would have "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K" in common with birds. It's a simplification but I hope it makes sense.

The most basel members of this group would seem to be the Compsognathids for which we do have feather evidence. In fact, we have evidence for feathers on members of all the Coelurosaur groups so naturally it would seem the ancestor to this group was also feathered before the separate groups diverged and took feather evolution with them. This is how we know Velociraptor had feathers. Not only is it in a group more closely related to birds than to other theropod dinosaurs but it is also a dromaeosaur which as a group is more closely related to birds than they are to any other dinosaur group. In fact, birds along with dromaeosaurs make up their own group known as Paraves or "all dinosaurs which are more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs". So you guessed it, Velociraptor has more in common with modern birds than with even the very bird-like Oviraptors. So you can see (I hope) just how birdy Velociraptor really was and that it just makes no logical sense to assume it was a featherless animal.

Very good, got it. So my inference would be then that other feathered dromeosaurs would all be at least as basal or more so then velociraptor?Is there a method of placing them in order of  most basal to least and if so done..then would velociraptor be closer to the front of this group or the more basal end?

[Patrx]

Patrx, in response to your question about the rex with scales, it was WyRex, that had the scale impressions most often mentioned,. A few other finds have minor patches, but the Wyrex specimen had a nice large patch recovered near the neck of the dinosaur. Here is the only picture I have, but knowing the find and so forth I am sure you can nail it down better.



Unsure if Wyrex has been written up yet, but I dont think anyone is disputing or denying this evidence as accurate at this time at least. I do know it still remains a possibility scales and reathers together on the same animal, but we can state that so far the only recovered north american integument is indeed scales.

Wow, very detailed! I look forward to hearing more about this find in the future. They look like the sort of "scales" you find on the underside of a theropod foot, the way they interlock.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

And by the way that part about velociraptors being more closely related to birds than oviraptors I did not know, but it is by definition quite amazing itself. It raises some comments about the eggs I have but I will throw that up in the egg thread when I get time as I am unsure how to state it at this point.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Patrx, in response to your question about the rex with scales, it was WyRex, that had the scale impressions most often mentioned,. A few other finds have minor patches, but the Wyrex specimen had a nice large patch recovered near the neck of the dinosaur. Here is the only picture I have, but knowing the find and so forth I am sure you can nail it down better.



Unsure if Wyrex has been written up yet, but I dont think anyone is disputing or denying this evidence as accurate at this time at least. I do know it still remains a possibility scales and reathers together on the same animal, but we can state that so far the only recovered north american integument is indeed scales.

Wow, very detailed! I look forward to hearing more about this find in the future. They look like the sort of "scales" you find on the underside of a theropod foot, the way they interlock.

LOL I knew you would want the picture. Now you know almost as much as I do, although Wyrex also had apparently the only entirely preserved rex hand I think if I am remembering right. There were a few noteworthy things about it indeed. I also understand it is already mounted and on display, albeit with an incomplete tail