Re: Feathering proof

[Yutyrannus]

What? Why are you saying hi?

I left for a while, and then came back. I was just being nice. 

Well, are you finally done with this ridiculous argument?

[Dinoguy2]

I feel like the thousand words in this thread could probably be summed up with one picture generated using actual... wait what's that thing called... oh yeah science!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7507/fig_tab/nature13467_F3.html

[Yutyrannus]

Good idea .

[Gwangi]

I feel like the thousand words in this thread could probably be summed up with one picture generated using actual... wait what's that thing called... oh yeah science!

You might think so but I'm doubtful it will help. Still a nice graphic, gonna have to save that one to the PC>

[DinoToyForum]

Wow! You either are a troll, or just the most ignorant feather hating person I know! I might actually do a blog post on why this is complete bollox. Either way, it was fun reading the entire exchange. Also, I'm surprised thst no one mentioned Kulindadromeus.

Be careful, calling someone "ignorant" might be construed as a personal attack...which, you know, is against the rules.

I wouldn't say that its an attack in this case, since ignorant means someone who doesn't know about the subject in context, its not always used as an insult, it can also be used literally

Calling someone ignorant is unconstructive and inciting, as is suggesting someone is a troll. Please reign in this sort of thing, folks, I don't want to have to lock the topic or for someone to get in trouble for breaking rules. Thanks!

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Very useful chart and it does help alot dinoguy, I had never seen that. It does help explain the concepts involved more closely.
on  a seperate note, after reading all the for and against I do have one issue with the fossil problem. I understand the entire lagerstaten argument well, and what is being given there, however it fails to explain one critical point that I am wondering about.
Have we no North American raptors with wing bones preserved? We should also be finding these with quill knobs I would assume, despite not having the correct environment for preserving feather imprints. This appears on the surface to be a glaring problem . I did read in a paper that missing quills knobs does not mean lack of feathering, but presence of means with certainty there were. Still one would think that surely we would have at least a single specimen displaying this trait.....thoughts ?

[Yutyrannus]

Very useful chart and it does help alot dinoguy, I had never seen that. It does help explain the concepts involved more closely.
on  a seperate note, after reading all the for and against I do have one issue with the fossil problem. I understand the entire lagerstaten argument well, and what is being given there, however it fails to explain one critical point that I am wondering about.
Have we no North American raptors with wing bones preserved? We should also be finding these with quill knobs I would assume, despite not having the correct environment for preserving feather imprints. This appears on the surface to be a glaring problem . I did read in a paper that missing quills knobs does not mean lack of feathering, but presence of means with certainty there were. Still one would think that surely we would have at least a single specimen displaying this trait.....thoughts ?

As far as I know, quill knobs only preserved on one specimen of Velociraptor, so they probably don't normally preserve very well in fossils.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Wow! You either are a troll, or just the most ignorant feather hating person I know! I might actually do a blog post on why this is complete bollox. Either way, it was fun reading the entire exchange. Also, I'm surprised thst no one mentioned Kulindadromeus.

Be careful, calling someone "ignorant" might be construed as a personal attack...which, you know, is against the rules.

I wouldn't say that its an attack in this case, since ignorant means someone who doesn't know about the subject in context, its not always used as an insult, it can also be used literally

Calling someone ignorant is unconstructive and inciting, as is suggesting someone is a troll. Please reign in this sort of thing, folks, I don't want to have to lock the topic or for someone to get in trouble for breaking rules. Thanks!

Aside from, there is a some profanity being used in the thread that is not conducive given the number of children in the forum. I know people get frustrated arguing their points here, but kids are also reading all this stuff too so please remember that. At the end of the day it is just a discussion and people are entitled to think what they like even if it defies all generally accepted logic.  I tend to do that alot myself lol.

[HD-man]

I feel like the thousand words in this thread could probably be summed up with one picture generated using actual... wait what's that thing called... oh yeah science!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7507/fig_tab/nature13467_F3.html

That cladogram's a bit too technical for my liking (although I understand why others would like it). I prefer the following cladogram for getting the same point across.

[Dinoguy2]

Very useful chart and it does help alot dinoguy, I had never seen that. It does help explain the concepts involved more closely.
on  a seperate note, after reading all the for and against I do have one issue with the fossil problem. I understand the entire lagerstaten argument well, and what is being given there, however it fails to explain one critical point that I am wondering about.
Have we no North American raptors with wing bones preserved? We should also be finding these with quill knobs I would assume, despite not having the correct environment for preserving feather imprints. This appears on the surface to be a glaring problem . I did read in a paper that missing quills knobs does not mean lack of feathering, but presence of means with certainty there were. Still one would think that surely we would have at least a single specimen displaying this trait.....thoughts ?

Note that not even all, actually not even most, modern birds have quill knobs. These are only found in birds that need very strongly anchored wing feathers for some reason, even more strongly than for the rigors of flight. Birds that have them tend to be, IIRC, soaring birds that dal with strong forced that would bend the feather bases, or birds like ostriches that have proportionally very large feathers for display and turning, the quill knobs help with the torque issues. So we would not expect quill knobs to be present in very many feathered fossils (they are not known in Microraptor or Archaeopteryx, for example).

Also, the preservation is usually pretty subtle. It's obvious in Rahonavis, but it was not noticed in Velociraptor until many years after that specimen was found during a re-study (people at the time of discovery were simply not looking to notice such things). Same for Ornithomimus' quill knobs (which is a North American example). I bet now that scientists know they exist and can fossilize, we will find more in old specimens in museums!

[amargasaurus cazaui]

That point actually segues right into my next comment.....I wonder if a thorough study has been done of the brooding Citipatti's that are so commonly mistaken for Oviraptor in books and magazines. It would seem likely given the criteria that these massive animals would have had quill knobs, given their size . While wandering down that mental path it occurs to me to ask that given the fact that oviraptors are more distant than velociraptors from birds, is it possible that Oviraptors might havge had a shared integument? It would seem a given the underside was feathered to a degree given the brooding specimens we have and I think Gwangi stated once the tail was known to have the phygostyle (spelling?)

[Ultimatedinoking]

What? Why are you saying hi?

I left for a while, and then came back. I was just being nice. 

Well, are you finally done with this ridiculous argument?

Yes, you can all go draw fuzzy tyrannosaurs, and I'll keep mine just the way they are.

[Trisdino]

But... but... this is not a matter of opinion for gods sake...


You are just as bad as bloody Ken Ham.

[Ultimatedinoking]

There's no physical proof adult T. rex had feathers.

Just because your tyrannosaurs are sweating it out under the Mesozoic sun, doesn't mean mine have to.

[DinoToyForum]

There's no need to voice exasperation with inciting comments, it's sure to create backlash, and then the snowball starts rolling. So, please leave it at that. Just agree to disagree if you can't find common ground. This is the last warning before I lock the thread. Thanks for your understanding! 

[Trisdino]

Just because your tyrannosaurs are sweating it out under the Mesozoic sun, doesn't mean mine have to.

Let me say that again. This. Is. Not. A. Matter. Of. Opinion.


Yes, there is tons of evidence for feathers on T.rex, direct, no, but phylogenetic bracketing makes the odds of it not having feathers incredibly small, not to mention, feathers can help an animal keep cool.


Edit: This was written before the above was posted. Again, I am just trying to educate him, but yeah, I suppose it is for the best, this is highly frustrating.

[Ultimatedinoking]

I am educated! 

[stargatedalek]

I'm about done here, why don't you take this to the PMs if you want to fight that badly?

[Trisdino]

I don't, it is a character flaw with me, I can not stand misinformation, especially not if people stand by it, but I will leave now, this thread will get locked otherwise anyway.

[Gwangi]

That point actually segues right into my next comment.....I wonder if a thorough study has been done of the brooding Citipatti's that are so commonly mistaken for Oviraptor in books and magazines. It would seem likely given the criteria that these massive animals would have had quill knobs, given their size . While wandering down that mental path it occurs to me to ask that given the fact that oviraptors are more distant than velociraptors from birds, is it possible that Oviraptors might havge had a shared integument? It would seem a given the underside was feathered to a degree given the brooding specimens we have and I think Gwangi stated once the tail was known to have the phygostyle (spelling?)

Like dromaeosaurs there is pretty good feather evidence for Oviraptors as well. Caudipteryx is a basel member of oviraptoridae and has been found fully feathered. The fossils are really beautiful. Similicaudipteryx is similar to Caudipteryx and also preserves feathers.

This is Caudipteryx.


As for the pygostyle, they have been found in Nomingia, Conchoraptor and Citipati. The brooding posture would also suggest extensive feathering on the arms what with them being wrapped around the eggs. The absence of quill knobs does not mean an absence of feathers though, like Dinoguy said, a lot of modern birds don't have them. They really only serve as an extra support. Velociraptor might need them what with being a fast moving predator but Oviraptors I image were less active in that regard and they certainly didn't fly either.

On a separate note here is a fun little video discussing feather evolution. It is pretty basic stuff but nicely presented and especially worth sharing with people less "in the know".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPLgfGX1I5Y