Re: Feathering proof

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Some of these images are quite distinct and amazing. I am unsure how the Banders could argue with alot of these fossils, they seem quite accurate and clear and are not particularly ambigous in their translation. I especially like the last set of pictures you posted Gwangi...what an amazing little dinosaur!!!

[Gwangi]

Some BANDits will argue that none of those feathered dinosaurs are actually dinosaurs, they'll claim that they're birds that evolved to look like theropods through convergence. A lame argument I know but they get desperate.

EDIT: Here are some more...

Microraptor


Another Microraptor


Caudipteryx

[HD-man]

I had hoped I might ask, and I hope I dont step on Gwangi's toes since he started this thread, but I was hoping perhaps people might be able to post pictures of some of these feathered dinosaur finds we keep hearing referenced.

Kulindadromeus: http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/kulindadromeus-images/

To quote Hone ( http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/jul/24/kulindadromeus-feathers-dinosaur-birds-evolution-siberia-russia?CMP=twt_gu ), "It cannot be said right now that any of the various filaments seen in Kulindadromeus are genuinely feathers in the sense that they share a single evolutionary origin back at the very origin of the dinosaurs and before the ornithischians split from the theropods and sauropodomorphs."

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I had never seen many of these fossils. I am truly amazed at how wonderful some of them are, and exquisite the preservation can be. Truly thanks for sharing guys, I think someone should have done that in the forum long overdue now. I am enjoying them , at least !!!

[Gwangi]

I think a lot of the people that are against the idea of feathered dinosaurs have not seen these fossils. I blame the media mostly, whenever a news story pops up they include an artistic rendering and seldom a quality photo of the actual fossil. If more people saw the actual evidence right in front of them, beautifully preserved like that then they would be less apprehensive.

Anchiornis


Sinornithosaurus


Changyuraptor

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I appreciate everyone sharing them, I tend more towards studying eggs, sauropods, and of course the more basal dinosaurs, which these are surely not. I had not seen most of these fossils nor do I have books that show very many of these in particular.
For me at least I can accept these dinosaurs were surely what they are considered and deserve the name feathered dragons. 
  For me it has never been an issue of being unwilling to accept feathered dinosaurs so much as requiring the fossil evidence supports the theory , as seen here . I am still 50/50 on Tyrannosaurus rex being feathered, given the known patch of integument found so far, but open to further evidence and where it goes.
  I appreciate all of the shared images, and sorry if this derailed your thread a bit Gwangi, although I am of a mind the images are a slam dunk to the thread title, surely...."feathering proof"

[Gwangi]

Don't worry about derailing the thread, it's been all over the place already. I didn't even start it personally, it was split off from another thread. If this thread is good for anything it's for sharing images like those, as opposed to endless bickering.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Don't worry about derailing the thread, it's been all over the place already. I didn't even start it personally, it was split off from another thread. If this thread is good for anything it's for sharing images like those, as opposed to endless bickering.

Agreed Gwangi, and the images sure say more than most of the words being typed I think.

[Newt]

To quote Hone ( http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/jul/24/kulindadromeus-feathers-dinosaur-birds-evolution-siberia-russia?CMP=twt_gu ), "It cannot be said right now that any of the various filaments seen in Kulindadromeus are genuinely feathers in the sense that they share a single evolutionary origin back at the very origin of the dinosaurs and before the ornithischians split from the theropods and sauropodomorphs."

Yes, but this animal is often referenced in feather discussions, so I thought it was appropriate to include the link.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I keep wondering one other thing about all of these fossil dinosaurs, but more so about Yutyrannus and Tyrannosaurus Rex. We know that we have scale samples from various North American theropods, like T-rex, Albertosaurus etc, and these patches of scales match up with areas we know were feathered in Yutyrannus.
My question is ....could it be or is it possible that the male and female of a species might have been feathered differently, and scaled differently than their mates? We know that nature uses many devices for sexual display and so forth. What if the for instance the female had more feathering and more colorful types than the male? Could the male for instance (or female ) have been less feathered as opposed to their mate that looks more like a walking pincushion? Could that question be expanded to include other feathered theropods...ie raptors, etc. Thoughts, or ideas?

[Balaur]

I keep wondering one other thing about all of these fossil dinosaurs, but more so about Yutyrannus and Tyrannosaurus Rex. We know that we have scale samples from various North American theropods, like T-rex, Albertosaurus etc, and these patches of scales match up with areas we know were feathered in Yutyrannus.
My question is ....could it be or is it possible that the male and female of a species might have been feathered differently, and scaled differently than their mates? We know that nature uses many devices for sexual display and so forth. What if the for instance the female had more feathering and more colorful types than the male? Could the male for instance (or female ) have been less feathered as opposed to their mate that looks more like a walking pincushion? Could that question be expanded to include other feathered theropods...ie raptors, etc. Thoughts, or ideas?

That's a good question. I am not sure. For the feathers and scales, I would say no. However, in terms of the amount of feathers on an animal depending on the sex, absolutely. Peafowl are a great example. Many birds do this too. Male turkeys have more feathers than the female.

[DinoLord]

I would imagine the overall amount of feathering/feather density would be the same. However, the size or shape of the feathers themselves could indeed vary greatly, leading to a visual impression of more or fewer feathers.

[stargatedalek]

Its possible,  but I think its more likely that the impressions are equivalent cassowarry whereas yutyrannus emu, something varying by species rather than gender

Birds with feathers varying by gender don't have bare patches as a result, rather the feathers are ornaments

as for dromaeosaurs, its highly unlikely that any would have significantly few feathers period, vulture esq head maybe

considering how much evidence of infighting amongst large tyrannosaurs, is it possible that like birds they had "plucking" behavior where the winner would tear at the loosers feathers

[Megalosaurus]

Hello.

I respect each one point of view, and I'd like to be respected as well.

Ufff. I've read through the 17 pages of this thread.  It took me a couple days.
In the past I've observed and read about almost every fossil referred in this thread.
I've read about bird evolution theories, including the Dr. Alan Feduccia's of course.

The forum member I mostly agree with is Amargasaurus, so I'll quote some statements he/she made early (I'm sorry, I don't know your gender).

I accept by definition of proof hard simple facts called fossils....dinosaurs found in the earth sediments and then studied to provide information. I do not accept speculation and guesswork based on other dinosaurs that might share common traits. It is a fools errand to even begin to suggest we have all the pieces of the fossil puzzle or can definitely nail down wether these animals were derived from birds or became birds let alone what order or what members. We can theorize yes, we can guess based on known fossils, but for now the evidence is not known.

That explains a bit my point of view: I trust when I observe a fossil, I do not trust educated inferences.

I will not discuss here about evolution, nor about dromaeosauridae. I'll talk about the Tyrannosaurus Rex ("T.Rex" from now on).

I'm inclined to think it was not feathered. Here are my reasons:

The specimen known as WyRex is the best T.Rex preserved ever found. It has the 3rd metacarpal (vestigial), the most compleat feet, and (most relevant to this topic) the skin impressions. There are more than 12 skin impressions in this specimen, most of them belong to the tail, and the biggest to the neck. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this).

The closely related and almost morphologically identical Tarbosaurus Bataar has scales in the thoracic region, the throat and the feet.

So, the crude facts, the current fossil record, the evidence written in stone is: T.Rex was covered by scales. Anything else is an inference, or a possibility, but the fact is: Scales. That's what we can see with our own eyes, what we can physically study if we have the right credentials.

To make a clarification: I'm perfectly fine if Carnegie Collection reconstruct a Yutyrannus with fuzz. But not with a feathered T.Rex.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my thoughts.

[Balaur]

Actually, read the first comment by Matt Martyniuk on a blog post of his. The skin impressions of tyrannosaurus seem to only be on the underside of the tsil, and they can't be positvely identified as scales, so it is possible that feathers were present elsewhere. I find it plausible that Tyrannosaurus had a scaley tail but a feathery body.

http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2014/07/people-think-feathered-dinosaurs-dont.html?showComment=1405616721952#c2825559826309779879

[stargatedalek]

feathered feet are rare amongst birds, so that literally means nothing as far as whether or not tyrannosaurus had scales or not
all of the areas that scales have been found (underside of tail, neck, and feet) are exactly where one would expect to find scales on an otherwise feathered animal

we've been getting entirely scaled tyrannosaurus since the dawn of marketing, I don't see why it would be a problem for some more mainstream available feathered pieces to finally be done, subjective or not its not fair of you to outright say "it would not be ok" for companies to make feathered tyrannosaurus figures when its entirely possible

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Just to clarify a few things, yes, Lane was found with large scale impressions from its back hip and upper leg region being the most well pronounced, however Lane is a Triceratops.

  As to all T-rex skin impressions being from the tail, and not being clearly identified as scales, no.
The largest scale impressions we have from Wyrex are from the neck region and are clearly and obviously scales and not skin. That being said , the impression could easily be from under the neck , rather than above. I have posted the picture several times in the forum and it is obviously not anything that is difficult to interpret or understand, the image is quite clear and well defined.
None of that rules out feathering as possible or even likely, however the evidence is what it is. For now at least the integument we have preserved for Tyrannosaurus rex is entirely scaled or skin, with ..so far at least, nothing for feathers.

[DinoLord]

Even though no fossils have been discovered, I think it is very likely T. rex had at least some form of feathers or protofeathers, even if they were not very noticeable. It has been established that many ancestors of T. rex throughout tyrannosaur lineage had such integument. While it is possible that late tyrannosaurs had lost feathers, one must consider possible reasons (besides aesthetic ideals). At least for me it is very hard to think of an evolutionary reason for T. rex and the like to have lost their feathers completely.

[Gwangi]

Expanding on what Paul Sereno said, I picked this quote up from an article about Yutyrannus.

So could T.rex also have been covered in feathers? Paul Sereno from the University of Chicago thinks so. "In my lab, I have a T. rex fossil that shows the beast did not have scales," he says.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyrannus-a-giant-tyrannosaur-with-feathers/#.VAaDNWN9fpc

Here are the pictures from Balaur's link.




Now I'm no expert and they do look a bit scaly but honestly, they do greatly resemble plucked bird skin.

[DinoLord]

If I ever make it to UChicago I'm going to have to bug Sereno to publish more specimens...