Re: Feathering proof

[Gwangi]

Amarga, forgive me if I'm a bit confused on exactly where you stand on the subject. You tell me you support the notion that Velociraptor had feathers but then tell me that if Carnegie produces a feathered Velociraptor they're selling out and you might stop collecting the line. With a comment like that it is hard to tell exactly where you stand.

On the subject of quill knobs. The knobs on Velociraptor are on the ulna like the knobs on modern birds. The quilled ornithischians do not preserve quill knobs on the ulna or knobs on the bones at all that I'm aware of.

These are the quill knobs in question on Velociraptor.


I understand you're statements on inference verses proof but these knobs in conjunction with preserved feathers on related animals and the relationship between dromaeosaurs and birds all point to the same conclusion, Velociraptor had feathers. That is the null hypothesis here, the default position on this animal. No feathers were preserved for Oviraptor either. You argue that the brooding posture and pygostyle are proof of feathers. They aren't. They're proof that Oviraptor had some kind of structure anchored to its tail and sat on its eggs. Could it not have had quills instead of feathers? Any argument you make against Velociraptor having feathers you can also make against them on Oviraptor and yet you're in full support of Carnegie's Oviraptor. I'm not saying I don't think Oviraptor had feathers, just using it as an example. We know it had them for the same reasons we know Velociraptor had them. Preserved feathers on related forms, relationship to modern birds and skeletal clues that indicate feathers.

So I must ask you and I hope you answer. If any toy company or artist were to produce a Velociraptor...what do you think they should cover it with? You said you believe they were feathered but don't want to see Carnegie produce a feathered Velociraptor. What is the alternative? What evidence exists for anything else? I am sure in your own collection you have models with sculpted scales on them for species where no integument was preserved. How do you feel about that? I'm gonna turn the tables here...how do we know Amargasaurus had scales? Maybe it had hair, feathers, armor plating or just naked skin? Carnegie produced an Amargasaurus, were they selling out by giving it scales? Do you see the point I'm trying to make here?

[HD-man]

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/)

I don't think there are, given the Holtz quote.

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

Keep in mind that's a Brusatte quote. Don't get me wrong as I do respect him for his technical work. However, his popular work (which includes his WWD articles) leaves something to be desired. His books are the best examples of what I mean. The following video gives an idea of how bad they are (Start at about 8:00; 1 of his books appears at about 8:30). It's like he thought, "So what if it's textually & visually inaccurate? It's just for non-scientists." The same goes for Benton. Sorry about the off-topic rant, but it had to be said.

Quoting Holtz (See "EVOLUTION OF FEATHERS": http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104aves.html ):

Note that the fuzz of the heterodontosaurid Tianyulong is very similar. Whether these turn out to be formed by convergence with theropods or retention in both groups of some ancestral dino-fuzz is not yet certain. (If it is a homologous structure, this means that the concestor of all Dinosauria was fuzzy, at least in part!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RG0yLeJE_U

[Patrx]

On the bright side, at least I assume you are delighted and will have your feathered "raptor" now !! Congrats on that !!

Time will tell! Just because it's got feathers doesn't mean they're in the right places. After all, the Bullyland, Favorite, and CollectA Velociraptors have feathers, and I still regard them as hideous. Suffice it to say that I'm curious to see what Carnegie's effort looks like.

By the way, I know I'm jumping backward in the conversation a bit, but I suspect that Safari have been more comfortable putting feathers on their oviraptorids for cultural reasons. After all, Velociraptor has a reputation to uphold - one that is directly linked to toy sales. Oviraptor doesn't have all that baggage, so it's much safer to change its look.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I will state again since you asked Gwangi....It is my feeling that these dinoaurs quite likely were feathered. In my opening comments I stated such....that it was likely and highly probable. What I then went on to state is that my issue is that in the past Carnegie has attempted to match their models to known fossils and hard proof. I stated that I felt there is a paucity or scarcity of actual fossil evidence to suggest one way or another at this point. Much like the single fossil of psittacosaurus found with quills being used as basis to make every one of them quilled and by inference each and every descendant that might have possibly been related. That is essentially what is happening here with a single arm bone from China.I would be somewhat shocked if any paleontologist in the world attempted to state there is an overload of fossils that can prove or do in any way reinforce the suspected relationships, and likelihood of these dinosaurs being feathered.
  When I examine my collection of dinosaurs closely I find this to be a truth. I tend to have many of the retro figures that were popular from  my childhood. I tend to also collect Kaiyodo figures as the majority are well scuplted, and there seems an endless list of species offered. I collect Battats of course, and am trying to finish my set. My collection lacks any figures by Papo, or Schleich for instance. Perhaps my most complete set of dinosaurs is and has always been the Carnegie figures. Despite the tripods, and poor color palette at times I have always admired how the line constantly updates and retires their models in line with the most current understandings of these animals. I get around the sometimes poor paint choices by employing Mr. Garrat to alter the paint schemes and make them works of art. Many of the Carnegie pieces are stunning sculpts hidden by very average and lackluster paint work . The selling point for me with Carnegie has always been this effort to remove badly dated pieces in favor of more accurate pieces. As they have done this Carnegie has generally followed the fossil evidence closely to verify the accuracy of their models. Now we have a single specimen and a feathered Dromeosaur, likely a Velociraptor.
In answer to your question about how to produce the Velciraptor, I believe it might have been a tad more prudent to offer a few versions of the model rather than just as a feathered dinosaur. I am sure you remember when they danced around producing the oviraptor with a few feathers, versus one with more feathers, as well as the general line offering for a fully covered version nesting.I think this is quite similar to the one quilled psittacosaurus trend.......and the evidence is hardly overpowering . I hope that answers the question....I just do not feel the evidence itself is compelling at this point.

[wings]

I don't think there are, given the Holtz quote.


...Keep in mind that's a Brusatte quote. Don't get me wrong as I do respect him for his technical work. However, his popular work (which includes his WWD articles) leaves something to be desired. His books are the best examples of what I mean. The following video gives an idea of how bad they are (Start at about 8:00; 1 of his books appears at about 8:30). It's like he thought, "So what if it's textually & visually inaccurate? It's just for non-scientists." The same goes for Benton. Sorry about the off-topic rant, but it had to be said...

That said what you have shown was from a video in 2012 and Brusatte's was in 2013. Of course time doesn't mean anything but whether there was a study published in between 2012 and 2013 I am not sure (maybe there is maybe there isn't). Brusatte might not be as well known as Holtz but I don't see why we can discriminate. Also what you've thought about his book in the past doesn't mean that he is wrong this time as well. That is just two completely different issues; I'm not sure what reference he (Brusatte) used (if any) and your comment is based on your impression of his work. I suppose we'll need to research more or write to the author to verified. I'm not trying to defend the guy but I also am not into shooting someone's idea down without verifying it (I think it would be safe to assume that you haven't contacted him to confirm whether his statement was made with or without any references).

I've only read one of his books ("Dinosaur Paleobiology") so I'm not too familiar with his work and I think the book is ok. Here is a review on this book; it didn't sound so bad (http://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/review-of-brusatte-2012-dinosaur-paleobiology/) and it is based on another palaeontologist's view...

If it is a homologous structure, this means that the concestor of all Dinosauria was fuzzy, at least in part!

Personally I don't see there really is a problem of animal having some kind of integument (possibly/possibly not) at the very base of the Dinosauria group since if we go further down the sauropsid tree we have other animals which have the potential to develop some kind of integument (like in Pterosauria though structurally different). In Witton's "Pterosaurs" he said:"...feather-like or hairlike integuments may be more common to the group than previously appreciated, so perhaps the idea of a completely fuzzy Ornithodira should not be ruled out just yet...(P.51)". I don't know whether it would be at least in part (as in your comment) but I just don't see why the kind of integuments on these animals at base of the dinosaurian tree has to be one way or another.

[HD-man]

That said what you have shown was from a video in 2012 and Brusatte's was in 2013. Of course time doesn't mean anything but whether there was a study published in between 2012 and 2013 I am not sure (maybe there is maybe there isn't).

I re-checked Albertonykus's "Dinosaur News" articles from August 2012-March 2013 just to make sure. Nothing AFAICT.

Brusatte might not be as well known as Holtz but I don't see why we can discriminate. Also what you've thought about his book in the past doesn't mean that he is wrong this time as well. That is just two completely different issues; I'm not sure what reference he (Brusatte) used (if any) and your comment is based on your impression of his work. I suppose we'll need to research more or write to the author to verified. I'm not trying to defend the guy but I also am not into shooting someone's idea down without verifying it (I think it would be safe to assume that you haven't contacted him to confirm whether his statement was made with or without any references).

1stly, I never said anything about discriminating against Brusatte b/c he's less well-known than Holtz. Where you got that from IDK. What I did say is that Brusatte doesn't seem to hold his popular work to the same standards as Holtz. This is a very relevant issue if you're gonna use Brusatte's popular work to support your argument.

2ndly, it's not just Brusatte's books (although they're the best examples of what I mean), but his popular work in general. Also, it's not just what I think. As indicated by my previous comment, other paleontologists have noticed the same problems as I have.

I've only read one of his book ("Dinosaur Paleobiology") so I'm not too familiar with his work and I think the book is ok. Here is a review on this book; it didn't sound so bad (http://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/review-of-brusatte-2012-dinosaur-paleobiology/) and it is based on another palaeontologist's view...

No offense, but that's not a good example of what I mean, given that it's a technical work.

Personally I don't see there really is a problem of animal having some kind of integument (possibly/possibly not) at the very base of the Dinosauria group since if we go further back further down the sauropsid tree we have other animals which have the potential to develop some kind of integument (like in Pterosauria though structurally different). In Witton's "Pterosaurs" he said:"...feather-like or hairlike integuments may be more common to the group than previously appreciated, so perhaps the idea of a completely fuzzy Ornithodira should not be ruled out just yet...(P.51)". I don't know whether it would be at least in part (as in your comment) but I just don't see why the kind of integuments on these animals at base of the dinosaurian tree has to be one way or another.

I never said I had problem with the possibility of the concestor of Dinosauria or Ornithodira being fuzzy, just that I don't think we should assume it was until the integumentary structures in question are shown with certainty to be homologous.

[wings]

I re-checked Albertonykus's "Dinosaur News" articles from August 2012-March 2013 just to make sure. Nothing AFAICT.

I'm not sure what this does proof? Without consulting the author I honestly think it is premature to dismiss someone's statement. How can you be sure that he didn't use any reference? Whether he did or not using your reasoning (Brusatte doesn't seem to hold his popular work to the same standards as Holtz) is rather unscientific.

1stly, I never said anything about discriminating against Brusatte b/c he's less well-known than Holtz. Where you got that from IDK. What I did say is that Brusatte doesn't seem to hold his popular work to the same standards as Holtz. This is a very relevant issue if you're gonna use Brusatte's popular work to support your argument.2ndly, it's not just Brusatte's books (although they're best examples of what I mean), but his popular work in general. Also, it's not just what I think. As indicated by my previous comment, other paleontologists have noticed the same problems as I have.

I don't know about you but this is irrelevant to the topic. Talking about standard is kind of like giving an impression (which is based on experience rather than fact like a paper or communicate with the author), at this point neither you or I have the idea whether Brusatte's statement is based on others or his own research or not...

No offense, but that's not a good example of what I mean, given that it's a technical work.

Now as I said before, I've only read this book of his and I wasn't aware of his "popular" work so I can't really be a judge of his "popular" work. The book that I listed aren't really quite what you would called "technical work" as reviewed by Mallison:"...This book provides a contemporary review of dinosaur science intended for students, researchers, and dinosaur enthusiasts...".

I never said I had problem with the possibility of the concestor of Dinosauria or Ornithodira being fuzzy, just that I don't think we should assume it was until the integumentary structures in question are shown with certainty to be homologous.

Perhaps it is the way that you wrote it "...If it is a homologous structure, this means that the concestor of all Dinosauria was fuzzy, at least in part!..."; the exclamation mark, to me imply that you find the idea as implausible.

Lastly, I'm not really trying to debate whether they are homologous or not and all I'm saying is how could you based your judgement to dismiss someone's remark based on an "impression" of what you perceived as their standard of work.

[HD-man]

I'm not sure what this does proof?

You said you weren't sure "whether there was a study published in between 2012 and 2013". Like I said in my previous comment, I re-checked & found nothing.

Without consulting the author I honestly think it is premature to dismiss someone's statement. How can you be sure that he didn't use any reference? Whether he did or not using your reasoning (Brusatte doesn't seem to hold his popular work to the same standards as Holtz) is rather unscientific.

1stly, I never said I was dismissing Brusatte's statement or that he didn't use any references. What I did say was that I'm skeptical of Brusatte's popular work, given its tendency to play fast & loose with the facts (among other things).

2ndly, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in my mouth. I've been patient for this long, but it's starting to get annoying, especially since I've expressed myself very clearly throughout this thread.

I don't know about you but this is irrelevant to the topic. Talking about standard is kind of like giving an impression (which is based on experience rather than fact), at this point neither you or I have the idea whether Brusatte's statement is based on others or his own research or not...

Are you saying you don't consider the quality of your sources to be relevant? I ask b/c that's what it looks like.

The book that I listed aren't really quite what you would called "technical work" as reviewed by Mallison:"...This book provides a contemporary review of dinosaur science intended for students, researchers, and dinosaur enthusiasts..."

Apparently, you missed the part where Wiley explicitly stated that it "aims to summarize current understanding of dinosaur science in a technical, but accessible, style, supplemented with vivid photographs and illustrations." The fact that it's over $50 is another indicator of it being a technical work (I.e. "For the Specialist": http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html ).

Perhaps it is the way that you write it "...If it is a homologous structure, this means that the concestor of all Dinosauria was fuzzy, at least in part!..."; the exclamation mark, to me imply that you find the idea as implausible.

You do realize that I was quoting Holtz, right?

[wings]

You said you weren't sure "whether there was a study published in between 2012 and 2013". Like I said in my previous comment, I re-checked & found nothing.

There is a different, yes perhaps there aren't any published work but no that still does not proof whether Brusatte's comment is baseless or not. Maybe he found an article prior to that time and Holtz might have overlooked; I'm not sure the likelihood of this and I am not saying that is exactly what happens but it is still a possible scenario.

1stly, I never said I was dismissing Brusatte's statement or that he didn't use any references. What I did say was that I'm skeptical of Brusatte's popular work, given its tendency to play fast & loose with the facts (among other things).

2ndly, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in my mouth. I've been patient for this long, but it's starting to get annoying, especially since I've expressed myself very clearly throughout this thread.

That is different from your original comment "...Keep in mind that's a Brusatte quote..." what do you mean by that? Are you implying that we should be skeptical if the comment is made by Brusatte? You've also said:"...I don't think there are, given the Holtz quote...".  Is this based on somehow you actually know he made "this" statement out of thin air (as in didn't look for references), or rather based on personal opinion ("...I'm skeptical of Brusatte's popular work, given its tendency to play fast & loose with the facts (among other things)...") or just based on Holtz's comment.

And yes your message is clear and all I have to do is cut and paste of what you've written down (and no alterations).

Are you saying you don't consider the quality of your sources to be relevant? I ask b/c that's what it looks like.

Are you saying once you don't agree with one's opinion(s) therefore regardless what they do in the future you would just dismiss them (even if there is a possibility that they based their finding on a reliable source, I'm not saying he did or he didn't but just to say it is possible)?

Apparently, you missed the part where Wiley explicitly stated that it "aims to summarize current understanding of dinosaur science in a technical, but accessible, style, supplemented with vivid photographs and illustrations." The fact that it's over $50 is another indicator of it being a technical work (I.e. "For the Specialist": http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html ).

That really depends on who you are talking to. Personally I don't think it is that technical and neither did Mallison. So it is just a matter of opinion. Using something like "...it's over $50 is another indicator of it being a technical work..."; I honestly don't get what is the logic behind this because there are non-technical books (on archosaurs) out there which would have a $50+ price tag.

You do realize that I was quoting Holtz, right?

I would assumed that was from your video but I doubt you would see a pair of brackets and an exclamation mark. Unless you are referring to a transcript...

[HD-man]

There is a different, yes perhaps there aren't any published work but no that still does not proof whether Brusatte's comment is baseless or not.

How many times do I have to repeat myself b-4 you actually get it? I never said I was dismissing Brusatte's statement or that he didn't use any references. What I did say was that 1) I was skeptical of Brusatte's popular work, given its sketchy quality, & 2) I re-checked the "Dinosaur News" articles from August 2012-March 2013 & found nothing.

That is different from your original comment "...Keep in mind that's a Brusatte quote..." what do you mean by that? Are you implying that we should be skeptical if the comment is made by Brusatte? You've also said:"...I don't think there are, given the Holtz quote...".  Is this based on somehow you actually know he made "this" statement out of thin air (as in didn't look for references), or rather based on personal opinion ("...I'm skeptical of Brusatte's popular work, given its tendency to play fast & loose with the facts (among other things)...") or just based on Holtz's comment.

No, it's not different. I said that I was skeptical of Brusatte's popular work then ("Keep in mind that's a Brusatte quote...his popular work (which includes his WWD articles) leaves something to be desired") & I'm still saying that now.

As for the Holtz quote, it's from a better-quality source: "GEOL 104 Dinosaurs: A Natural History" is a course Holtz teaches at UCMP, & thus has to be based on the technical literature (hence the list of references following each phylogeny).

Are you saying once you don't agree with one's opinion(s) therefore regardless what they do in the future you would just dismiss them (even if there is a possibility that they based their finding on a reliable source, I'm not saying he did or he didn't but just to say it is possible)?

1stly, that doesn't answer my question: Are you saying you don't consider the quality of your sources to be relevant? I ask b/c you continue using Brusatte's popular work to support your argument despite its sketchy quality, referring to its sketchy quality as "irrelevant to the topic".

2ndly, I never said anything about anyone's opinions (which makes your question moot). What I did say is that Brusatte's popular work has a tendency to play fast & loose with the facts (among other things). You seem to be confused (which is weird, given that I've expressed myself very clearly throughout this thread).

That really depends on who you are talking to. Personally I don't think it is that technical and neither did Mallison. So it is just a matter of opinion. Using something like "...it's over $50 is another indicator of it being a technical work..."; I honestly don't get what is the logic behind this because there are non-technical books (on archosaurs) out there which would have a $50+ price tag.

Both Wiley & Mallison explicitly stated that the book is intended for students & researchers 1st ("The book is clearly aimed at providing an overview and starting point for literature research on dinosaurs to students") &, as I pointed out in my previous comment, that it's written in a technical language ("Steve's intended audience clearly is one that does not shy away from technical terms or complicated issues"). So yes, it is a technical work (maybe not as technical as "The Dinosauria", but technical nonetheless). & no, still-in-print popular works don't usually go for over $50.

I would assumed that was from your video but I doubt you would see a pair of brackets and an exclamation mark. Unless you are referring to a transcript...

Seriously, what the heck? The Holtz quote & the video are obviously 2 separate things & were obviously posted in reference to 2 separate things. How you mixed them up IDK, but I'm guessing that means you neither clicked on the Holtz quote's link or watched the video.

[wings]

Basically the issue that I have with your remarks is ignoring /dismissing others work due to personal preference. For example, you said"... I was skeptical of Brusatte's popular work, given its sketchy quality..." or "... Brusatte doesn't seem to hold his popular work to the same standards as Holtz...". This just shows your comment is just based on personal opinion rather than factually based. You kept saying Holtz's work is based on technical literature however who is to say that Brusatte's work wasn't and should be less valued. Holtz could be giving lectures but that is something he chose to do or that is his job; that doesn't make his work "better" or "worse" in quality. There are some "not" so good lecturers lurking around pretty much any campus (and I'm not saying Holtz is bad just that stating someone is lecturing at UCMP has better quality work is rather irrelevant). I did answer your question about quality, the bottom line is I would look into them (comments when possible) individually (case by case based) and would not skip them even if someone's previous work is not up to standard. To state something like "...Brusatte's popular work has a tendency to play fast & loose with the facts..." just demonstrate that your view is based on the person rather than really looking into the problem. Though Mallison does state that "...This book provides a contemporary review of dinosaur science intended for students, researchers,..." but he also does state that could be for dinosaur enthusiasts as well so there really isn't much of a contradiction of what has been said about this could also be a "popular/layman" article. There are reasons that often technical jargon is used even in a layman's article (Perhaps the scientist think that is the most precise term to use therefore there is no confusion or they think it is the best way to express the meaning of what they are trying to convey and sometimes unavoidable). Terms like "diapsid" or "amniota" or "avialae" are often found in popular titles, now these are technical terms but they were used to give a precise definition and not to confuse the readers. As to popular books that is over 50 bucks, since I don't own a bookshop and looking on my bookshelf there is a few, like "Dinosaurs a global view" by S & S Czerkas, "Dinosaur coffee table book" by Paul and "Glorified Dinosaurs" by Chiappe. So no, unlike yourself I still wouldn't say $50+ is an indicator to whether it is a technical book or not is a fact (your earlier comment...The fact that it's over $50 is another indicator of it being a technical work). And no I didn't click on the video link because I ran out of bandwidth for the month so I assumed the line is based on the lecture and the video.

[HD-man]

@Wings

This "debate" has gone WAY off topic, so I'm gonna finish it now.

1stly, in reference to most of your last comment (which, like most of this "debate", consists of you putting words in my mouth), I'm only gonna repeat myself 1 more time, so pay attention: I never said I was skipping/ignoring/dismissing Brusatte's work "due to personal preference", just that I was skeptical of his popular work b/c of its tendency to play fast & loose with the facts (among other things); Last I checked, playing fast & loose with the facts is by definition NOT a matter of "personal preference" (E.g. Naish put it best when he said, "When a dinosaur book published in 2011 features scaly-skinned, completely un-feathered dromaeosaurs with down-facing palms, and yet was supposedly checked by one of the world's most famous and respected vertebrate palaeontologists, we know we have a problem": http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/11/05/great-dinosaur-art-event-of-2012/ ); Also, I do look at individual works "case by case" & the original Brusatte quote wasn't the only problem with the article from which it came; Specifically, Brusatte claimed that Sciurumimus "tells us that even very primitive theropods had feathers" despite the fact that Sciurumimus is, at the very least, a tetanuran or "derived theropod" (a basal tetanuran, yes, but a tetanuran nonetheless); Also also, I never said Holtz's syllabus is a better-quality source than Brusatte's article b/c of who wrote them (although in this case it does help for reasons I've already discussed) or why, but b/c they're scholarly & popular sources, respectively, & thus by definition the former is a better-quality source than the latter ( http://libguides.vassar.edu/content.php?pid=188874&sid=1674953 ).

2ndly, in reference to the books you listed, only 1 of your examples is any good: Czerkas's book is out-of-print, so I can't confirm what the original price was (although my used copy might still have the original price tag); Chiappe's book (like Brusatte's "Dinosaur Paleobiology") is obviously intended for specialists (E.g. "Glorified Dinosaurs: The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds is an invaluable resource for every palaeontologist, ornithologist, evolutionary biologist, geology and life sciences student": http://www.amazon.com/Glorified-Dinosaurs-Origin-Early-Evolution/dp/0471247235/ref=la_B001IQXDO0_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381095544&sr=1-2 ); While both books are more accessible to interested laypeople than other technical works (hence why said ppl are mentioned in the book descriptions), said ppl are obviously NOT the target audience (which is probably part of the reason why technical works are so expensive); Paul's book is an exception to the rule (hence why I said, "still-in-print popular works don't usually go for over $50"), being a print-on-demand book of rare, high-quality art on large, high-quality paper.

3rdly, in reference to the original topic, I did some searching for articles similar to (but more recent than) Brusatte's "Did Triceratops have feathers or quills?" & found Hone's "Feathered everything: just how many dinosaurs had feathers?". The last paragraph in particular makes the original topic moot (See the following quote; Basically, the original Holtz quote is still accurate).

Quoting Hone ( http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/jun/10/dinosaurs-fossils ):

All of this hinges on whether or not these things truly do share a single evolutionary origin. This has not yet been studied in detail, and while there are some suggestions the ornithischian filaments are more like feathers than the pterosaur pycnofibers, there is little real data at this point. It does however make for a most interesting and intriguing possibility. Some artists have already taken the opportunity and there are stegosaurs and sauropods appearing with hints of fluff. At the moment, it's probably best considered not much stronger than informed speculation, but it certainly not unreasonable as a hypothesis or improbable. It was quite some time before it was widely accepted that many theropods had feathers, yet the number of lineages that likely had feathers has increased dramatically in just a few years. It was thought unlikely to the point of impossibility that ornithischians would have any kind of covering beyond scales and armour, but two different species were found to have filaments less than a decade apart, and it has even been suggested that the famous Triceratops had some bristles as part of its skin. What could be next is not quite anyone's guess, but there are certainly plenty of decent possibilities and without trying to sound clichéd, that does mean the future likely holds some fantastic discoveries.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I perhaps started much of this originial debate with my own ideas and questions but wanted to insert myself back to the topic or idea I was attempting to learn or understand better or perhaps come away with a better understanding. Between the three of you (Gwangi, Wings and HD) I had hoped you might be able to come at the basis of my original questioning or idea. (And it might be very posible one of you did and it was lost on me due to the papers, terms and books being tossed back and forth)
  What I was wanting to learn or understand better is basically this. The quills of a few animals are being called quills. Those animals being Tianyulong and the one known specimen of Psittacosaurus, and of by inference Pegomastax. These particular dinosaurs are referred to as quilled......not feathered. My question centers around those dinosaurs versus the known feathered dinosaurs who have quill knobs. It has been stated the quill knobs are proof of feathering.
  My question then would be the quilled dinoaurs themselves, do they posess attachment points for those quills ? Do they just erupt from the skin or scales at given points? Do they have a structure that holds them to the skeleton? I am trying to understand or dig deeper into the difference between the quills themselves and the center shafts of feathers that I assume are being called quills, as they attach to quill knobs. Sitting behind me in a glass case as I type is a specimen of Psittacosaurus some 25 inches long . The tail is entirely unremarkable except in its age and state of preservation. I see no visible attachment areas for quills in the only one I can study in close.
  I am hoping to better define or understand why these few animals are termed quilled dinosaurs versus others with seemingly similar evidence are assumed as feathered. Does that entirely fall within family bracketing and the critical thinking that birds are dinosaurs or does the fossil evidence itself divide the two kinds of dinosaurs so that it might be impossible for a parrot lizard to be feathered?
I am sure those who understand where I have taken this now see where I was going. For me it is not so much just understanding the Dromeosaurs, but also learning more about the differences between my beloved psittacosaurus and those animals.

[wings]

@ HD-man

Case by case? Your original comment was...

Well there is no point in repeating since you kept denying them.

As for the books, I bought Czeckas book from a local bookstore not long ago so if it is out of print I suppose I'm lucky. For Chiappe's book, this is similar to Brusatte's and it depends on who you're speaking to, in Naish's review (http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/01/12/luis-chiappes-glorified-dinosaurs/) he said:"It should be obtained by everyone interested in avian history and origins, but will also be enjoyed by people interested in birds in general...". But regardless your original comment was "...The fact that it's over $50 is another indicator of it being a technical work..." since then you've toned down ("still-in-print popular works don't usually go for over $50") but that still doesn't change your initial comment. Paul's is an exception?... rare, high-quality art on large, high-quality paper? What kind of reasoning is that?

I've never denied Holtz's view so I'm not sure why proving Holtz idea is relevant. The original was I'm not sure if we can tell Brusatte has done his research in making his comment on that article and calling someone's work "sketchy" for me at least is insufficient (based on your original comment).

  What I was wanting to learn or understand better is basically this. The quills of a few animals are being called quills. Those animals being Tianyulong and the one known specimen of Psittacosaurus, and of by inference Pegomastax. These particular dinosaurs are referred to as quilled......not feathered. My question centers around those dinosaurs versus the known feathered dinosaurs who have quill knobs. It has been stated the quill knobs are proof of feathering.
  My question then would be the quilled dinoaurs themselves, do they posess attachment points for those quills ? Do they just erupt from the skin or scales at given points? Do they have a structure that holds them to the skeleton? I am trying to understand or dig deeper into the difference between the quills themselves and the center shafts of feathers that I assume are being called quills, as they attach to quill knobs. Sitting behind me in a glass case as I type is a specimen of Psittacosaurus some 25 inches long . The tail is entirely unremarkable except in its age and state of preservation. I see no visible attachment areas for quills in the only one I can study in close.
  I am hoping to better define or understand why these few animals are termed quilled dinosaurs versus others with seemingly similar evidence are assumed as feathered. Does that entirely fall within family bracketing and the critical thinking that birds are dinosaurs or does the fossil evidence itself divide the two kinds of dinosaurs so that it might be impossible for a parrot lizard to be feathered?
I am sure those who understand where I have taken this now see where I was going. For me it is not so much just understanding the Dromeosaurs, but also learning more about the differences between my beloved psittacosaurus and those animals.

To get a better understanding perhaps you should look at the basic feather structure (see below)



The element labelled "calamus" is what we referred to as quill. To keep this simple visually this kind of structure (calamus and shaft - "Rachis"-the rachis itself being hollow) looks very similar to the quills found on say ornithischians without vane and barbs (the area labelled as outer web and inner web on the diagram). That is probably what you generally see in the description as "quilled" on the other hand when people are talking about "feathered", they were normally referring to animals which have the complete structure (vane, barb, rachis but not necessarily barbules (little hooks linking the barbs together to form the vane)) but often the term was loosely used in animals with "filement-like" integuments.

Mayr et al. (2002) paper on psittacosaur integuments (http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/papers/gmayr43.pdf) states that "...We interpret these structures as cylindrical and possibly tubular epidermal structures that were anchored deeply in the skin...not show any branching, which was recently reported for the filaments of the theropod genera Beipiaosaurus and Sinornithosaurus". So these "quills" just attached into the flesh (also noted these quills are preserved on the body of the specimen but not on the limbs); as for your query on the "quill knobs", if you've read the velociraptor paper (http://evolucionuader.yolasite.com/resources/Turner%20et%20al%202007%20-%20Dinosaurios%20con%20plumas..pdf, which was mentioned earlier) you'll find these protrusions are on the ulna (one of the lower arm bones, the slightly "thicker" one) of the animal. If you would like to make a comparison you should look at a common area like both on the body or both on the arms. When you are looking at the arms (since you are talking about quill knobs); all known specimen of psittacosaurs don't have any. Now let's compare the body and I'll use microraptor for example since they were often found with a halo of feather-like structure surrounding their bodies; we will look at the tail area on both animals (psittacosaurus and microraptor) and what we will see their skeletons (common area with integument- on the tail) don't show any visible evidence of these attachments (no quill knobs on the body even though we know that they both have some kind of integuments). So there shouldn't be any visible markings on the "body" regardless if it has these "integuments" or not.

You should also read this abstract about the quill knobs as well (http://sicb.org/meetings/2012/schedule/abstractdetails.php?id=1356). Just a reminder, not all birds have "quill knobs".

To your Psittacosaurus, all we can say is the likelihood of its integument. All known ornithischian integuments found are scales, filaments and "quills" but we never have vane feathers; and based on Mayr's it seems the animal you have is most likely to be covered with scales on most parts, apart from the quills on the tail of course. Are there many variety of these arrangements (like different integument distributions)? We just don't have enough specimens to compare with.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Now that was a trove of useful information !! Thanks so much Wings...I did have one question that came to mind immediately and bear in mind I have not yet linked to nor read the papers you provided links for. The "rachis" as referred then is and was hollow for feathers if I understood correctly. Then in the central quills for the psittacosaurus and other such types would this central shaft have been solid? If I understand correctly, other than the branching which creates the inner and outer web, the only only other directly viewable difference would be the solid or hollow nature of the "quills"?
The other possible difference being the "rachis" attaches to the ulna, whereas the quills attach within skin and would not therefore leave any form of attachment method for the fossil.
  That would be correct in light of my own fossil, as there is nothing anywhere to indicate attachments of any kind. I will read the links you provided a well and thanks for sharing them.

[wings]

...The "rachis" as referred then is and was hollow for feathers if I understood correctly. Then in the central quills for the psittacosaurus and other such types would this central shaft have been solid? If I understand correctly, other than the branching which creates the inner and outer web, the only only other directly viewable difference would be the solid or hollow nature of the "quills"?
The other possible difference being the "rachis" attaches to the ulna, whereas the quills attach within skin and would not therefore leave any form of attachment method for the fossil.
  That would be correct in light of my own fossil, as there is nothing anywhere to indicate attachments of any kind. I will read the links you provided a well and thanks for sharing them.

The centre of the shaft (rachis) do hollow out in mature feathers. Base on initial inspection Mayr et al. (2002) thinks the "bristles" on Psittacosaurus are hollow cylindrical elements (from the paper :"...Most "bristles" exhibit a dark stripe of varying width along at least a part of their midline, which possibly indicates the presence of a hollow lumen inside these structures..."). Probably have a read on these articles first.

[HD-man]

@Wings

I should've figured that, even after spelling everything out for you, you'd STILL put words in my mouth. Ah well, might as well correct the new inaccuracies.

Case by case? Your original comment was...

There's nothing in my original comments that contradicts my "case by case" statement, so don't even try to claim otherwise. I made my "sketchy quality" statement based on having read several of Brusatte's popular works individually (I.e. "Case by case") & noticing the same kinds of inaccuracies in all them (The popular books I've read are visually inaccurate to a large extent; Both the popular books & WWD articles I've read are textually inaccurate to some extent).

Paul's is an exception?... rare, high-quality art on large, high-quality paper? What kind of reasoning is that?

Wow, are you really not getting it? In any case, to quote Orr ( http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2010/07/greg-pauls-dinosaur-coffee-table-book.html ), "Even spending $20 on a book is a careful decision for me right now, so I don't think I'll be able to shell out the nearly $70 for this one (or $120 for the larger deluxe edition pictured above). Certainly, I don't hold the price against Paul; one downside to print-on-demand publishing is higher cost-per-unit. And really, it's not out of line for what a traditional publisher might charge for a large-format art book."

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the meanings of my original comments haven't changed (E.g. Last I checked, the statements "The fact that it's over $50 is another indicator of it being a technical work" & "still-in-print popular works don't usually go for over $50" are NOT mutually exclusive). What has changed is the wording as I've tried to spell everything out for you (b/c talking like a normal person apparently doesn't work for you).

I've never denied Holtz's view so I'm not sure why proving Holtz idea is relevant. The original was I'm not sure if we can tell Brusatte has done his research in making his comment on that article and calling someone's work "sketchy" for me at least is insufficient (based on your original comment).

I never said anything about proving Holtz right. Assuming you read the Hone quote (if not the article from which it came), you should've seen that it says more-or-less the same thing as the original Holtz quote. In other words, I was just summing up the Hone quote/article when I said "See the following quote; Basically, the original Holtz quote is still accurate" & that's all there is to it.

[Dinoguy2]

Just anted to chime in and say that it looks like the "quills" of Tianyulong and Psittacosaurus probably are feathers after all, or at least homologous with them. Feathers in modrrn birds take on a variety of forms. Turkeys, for example, have quill-like "beard" feathers that evolved from normal feathers. It's possible this is what the "quills" are in certain ornithischians.

Also, keep an eye on the news in the next few weeks. There is a major new fossil bed found in Siberia that is just as good as the famous ones in China for producing feathered dinosaurs. The first of these is set to be presented at SVP next week and published shortly after.

It's an ornithischian with true feathers, not just quills.

So, there's that.

If early reports are correct, it would mean all dinosaurs evolved from feathered ancestors and that the "pycnofibers" of pterosaurs are probably just simple feathers, too. This could be the most important dino discovery since Sinosauropteryx!

But wait, don't some dinos have scales? of course, all dinos have sclae,s including birds, on various parts of the body. But as we see in the Jehol fossils, scales and feathers require different conditions to fossilize. Almost all feathered dinosaurs do not preserve even a trace of scales, even though we know they must have had them, at least on the feet. Most scaly dinosaurs preserve no trace of feathers. We used to assume this was because they had no feathers, but it should be clear by now that it's really just because they almost never fossilize side by side. Surely all feathered dinosaurs had at least small patches of scales and many large, scaled dinosaurs probably had at least sparse feathering.

Think Armadillos and glyptodonts. Many glyptodonts preserve really nice moulds of the shell texture, but no trace of the hair they almost certainly had covering it and filling in the cracks. Actually, that's not entirely true--some glyptodont osteoderms have peculiar channels in them that are thought to be where blood vessels fed the hair and it was anchored. Weirdly, ankylosaurs have very similar structures...

[Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus]

If early reports are correct, it would mean all dinosaurs evolved from feathered ancestors and that the "pycnofibers" of pterosaurs are probably just simple feathers, too. This could be the most important dino discovery since Sinosauropteryx!

Now, I believe that dinos had feathers just as much as the next guy, but how the heck does one fossil bed prove that "all dinosaurs evolved from feathered ancestors"? Not saying that this statement isn't true, but, again, how the heck does one find prove that? That's faulty logic. I'm sure there were some dinos with no feathers, and making this huge statement with little evidence seems to me irrational. Could you enlighten me?

[tyrantqueen]

I know I've said this before, so sorry for repeating myself: what about the "mummified" hadrosaurs? For me, they are definite proof that hadrosaurs, at least, were not feathered. Surely, if the muscles, scales, and inter vertebral discs were preserved, feathers/fuzz would have been too?