Re: Feathering proof

[Gwangi]

Love this!
http://osmatar.deviantart.com/art/How-not-to-Draw-Feathered-Dinosaurs-487546319

[Patrx]

It's brilliant! But I've been a bit dismayed to see how many people have somehow taken it literally or otherwise missed its point. It's clearly marked as an "anti-guide"! 

[Megalosaurus]

Confuciusornis lived in the Yixian and Jiufotang formations from 124 to 120 mya. [...]

You are right on that, sorry but I took my data from the Enciclopaedia Britannica, so they need to update the data. The birds you mentioned that are similar to Archaeopterix, are older than it from 10MY to 19MY and pushes birds back to the Middle Jurassic. So interesting anyway.
But protoavis pushes them back to the... ejem... [debate is comming]

Love this!

Did Dr.House write that guidelines? 
mmm... It reminds me the Papo Archaeopterix... thats the reason I didn't buy it.  I'll wait to see the new Safari one.

[Gwangi]

The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air and the majority of paleontologist disagree with that identification There is not much to go by with Protoavis and it's poorly preserved, though I will admit that what elements were preserved do appear awfully bird-like to my untrained eyes.
But even if Protoavis turned out to be a bird it still wouldn't discount dinosaurs as bird ancestors, only push back their appearance considerably. Dinosaurs are still the only viable option for bird ancestors and even Chatterjee who described the creature supports the "Birds Are Dinosaurs" theory. How Fedducia and colleagues think Protoavid discounts dinosaurs as bird ancestors is anyone's guess, they still don't have a better alternative.

[Dinoguy2]

The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air

Not really, this is like saying the theory of evolution is still up in the air. One fringe researcher who uses... dubious methods (Chatterjee) still thinks its real. Everybody else is busy identifying the various parts as prolacertiform and coelophysid species.

Note that Chatterjee is the same guy who took a horribly crushed bird skull from Antarctica, described it as a Cretaceous loon nearly identical to modern species, and printed a reconstruction in his paper that made it look like he was dealing with a perfectly preserved specimen. Not exactly honest science.

[Gwangi]

The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air

Not really, this is like saying the theory of evolution is still up in the air. One fringe researcher who uses... dubious methods (Chatterjee) still thinks its real. Everybody else is busy identifying the various parts as prolacertiform and coelophysid species.

Note that Chatterjee is the same guy who took a horribly crushed bird skull from Antarctica, described it as a Cretaceous loon nearly identical to modern species, and printed a reconstruction in his paper that made it look like he was dealing with a perfectly preserved specimen. Not exactly honest science.

Are you deliberately trying to start a debate where there isn't one? Instead of focusing on one half of my sentence, look at the entire thing.

"The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air and the majority of paleontologist disagree with that identification."

Ok, so maybe I didn't word it exactly how you would have but I think I did a fine job of summing up the issue and hinting at the fact that I am at least vaguely familiar with Protoavis. I appreciate the additional information but you don't need to take me to task for something so trivial, just add your additional information and leave it at that.

[Dinoguy2]

The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air

Not really, this is like saying the theory of evolution is still up in the air. One fringe researcher who uses... dubious methods (Chatterjee) still thinks its real. Everybody else is busy identifying the various parts as prolacertiform and coelophysid species.

Note that Chatterjee is the same guy who took a horribly crushed bird skull from Antarctica, described it as a Cretaceous loon nearly identical to modern species, and printed a reconstruction in his paper that made it look like he was dealing with a perfectly preserved specimen. Not exactly honest science.

Are you deliberately trying to start a debate where there isn't one? Instead of focusing on one half of my sentence, look at the entire thing.

"The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air and the majority of paleontologist disagree with that identification."

Ok, so maybe I didn't word it exactly how you would have but I think I did a fine job of summing up the issue and hinting at the fact that I am at least vaguely familiar with Protoavis. I appreciate the additional information but you don't need to take me to task for something so trivial, just add your additional information and leave it at that.

Sorry if I sounded confrontational, it was your wording that threw me off. If a majority of scientists (majority meaning all except the guy who discovered it) disagree that it's a bird, then it's not up in the air. Eshanosaurus, now there's something still up in the air...

[Arul]

Wow, what an intersting discussion...

[Gwangi]

The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air

Not really, this is like saying the theory of evolution is still up in the air. One fringe researcher who uses... dubious methods (Chatterjee) still thinks its real. Everybody else is busy identifying the various parts as prolacertiform and coelophysid species.

Note that Chatterjee is the same guy who took a horribly crushed bird skull from Antarctica, described it as a Cretaceous loon nearly identical to modern species, and printed a reconstruction in his paper that made it look like he was dealing with a perfectly preserved specimen. Not exactly honest science.

Are you deliberately trying to start a debate where there isn't one? Instead of focusing on one half of my sentence, look at the entire thing.

"The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air and the majority of paleontologist disagree with that identification."

Ok, so maybe I didn't word it exactly how you would have but I think I did a fine job of summing up the issue and hinting at the fact that I am at least vaguely familiar with Protoavis. I appreciate the additional information but you don't need to take me to task for something so trivial, just add your additional information and leave it at that.

Sorry if I sounded confrontational, it was your wording that threw me off. If a majority of scientists (majority meaning all except the guy who discovered it) disagree that it's a bird, then it's not up in the air. Eshanosaurus, now there's something still up in the air...

I was trying to approach the issue in a casual way that wouldn't get people up in arms and start another debate (as was Amarga's concern). So much for that.

[laticauda]

The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air

Not really, this is like saying the theory of evolution is still up in the air. One fringe researcher who uses... dubious methods (Chatterjee) still thinks its real. Everybody else is busy identifying the various parts as prolacertiform and coelophysid species.

Note that Chatterjee is the same guy who took a horribly crushed bird skull from Antarctica, described it as a Cretaceous loon nearly identical to modern species, and printed a reconstruction in his paper that made it look like he was dealing with a perfectly preserved specimen. Not exactly honest science.

Are you deliberately trying to start a debate where there isn't one? Instead of focusing on one half of my sentence, look at the entire thing.

"The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air and the majority of paleontologist disagree with that identification."

Ok, so maybe I didn't word it exactly how you would have but I think I did a fine job of summing up the issue and hinting at the fact that I am at least vaguely familiar with Protoavis. I appreciate the additional information but you don't need to take me to task for something so trivial, just add your additional information and leave it at that.

Sorry if I sounded confrontational, it was your wording that threw me off. If a majority of scientists (majority meaning all except the guy who discovered it) disagree that it's a bird, then it's not up in the air. Eshanosaurus, now there's something still up in the air...

I was trying to approach the issue in a casual way that wouldn't get people up in arms and start another debate (as was Amarga's concern). So much for that.

I don't think it is possible for people to not get up in arms on the topic of feathers.  It can be fun to watch though.  Like watching full contact tennis with paint ball guns and a flamming net.  Non-stop back and forth action.   

[Gwangi]

The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air

Not really, this is like saying the theory of evolution is still up in the air. One fringe researcher who uses... dubious methods (Chatterjee) still thinks its real. Everybody else is busy identifying the various parts as prolacertiform and coelophysid species.

Note that Chatterjee is the same guy who took a horribly crushed bird skull from Antarctica, described it as a Cretaceous loon nearly identical to modern species, and printed a reconstruction in his paper that made it look like he was dealing with a perfectly preserved specimen. Not exactly honest science.

Are you deliberately trying to start a debate where there isn't one? Instead of focusing on one half of my sentence, look at the entire thing.

"The identification of Protoavis as a bird is still up in the air and the majority of paleontologist disagree with that identification."

Ok, so maybe I didn't word it exactly how you would have but I think I did a fine job of summing up the issue and hinting at the fact that I am at least vaguely familiar with Protoavis. I appreciate the additional information but you don't need to take me to task for something so trivial, just add your additional information and leave it at that.

Sorry if I sounded confrontational, it was your wording that threw me off. If a majority of scientists (majority meaning all except the guy who discovered it) disagree that it's a bird, then it's not up in the air. Eshanosaurus, now there's something still up in the air...

I was trying to approach the issue in a casual way that wouldn't get people up in arms and start another debate (as was Amarga's concern). So much for that.

I don't think it is possible for people to not get up in arms on the topic of feathers.  It can be fun to watch though.  Like watching full contact tennis with paint ball guns and a flamming net.  Non-stop back and forth action.   

Sounds about right. How does the saying go? There are three things you never talk about with people; religion, politics and baseball. I think we can add dinosaur feathers to that list. I'm trying to get better about my approach to these topics, the key word here is trying.

[leidy]

Question: is there any direct evidence for wings on tyrannosaurids?

I'm not disputing the feathers, or the close relationship to winged theropods, it's just every time I see some restoration of T.rex with tiny little wings it just seems a bit counter-intuitive. 

I was google image searching it.  You'd think between Yutyrannus, Dilong, Guanlong, and whatever else that there might be a fossil somewhere showing this, but I haven't been able to find a good enough photo to make anything out either way.

[stargatedalek]

If I recall correctly yutyrannus arms were coated with feathers somewhat like "sleeves", ending at its wrists
(but don't quote me on this, because I think I'm probably mistaken)

worth noting that the arms of later tyrannosaurs were much smaller than those of yutyrannus, so there's really nothing direct to go on regardless of what yutyrannus arms were like

personally I tend to add some form of display to them, but that's entirely personal interpretation regarding function of the reduced forelimbs

[leidy]

If I recall correctly yutyrannus arms were coated with feathers somewhat like "sleeves", ending at its wrists
(but don't quote me on this, because I think I'm probably mistaken)

worth noting that the arms of later tyrannosaurs were much smaller than those of yutyrannus, so there's really nothing direct to go on regardless of what yutyrannus arms were like

personally I tend to add some form of display to them, but that's entirely personal interpretation regarding function of the reduced forelimbs

That's the way it was shown in art that accompanied the announcement, but as with any restoration, it's always good to know how much is taken directly from the fossils, and how much is inferred, or speculative. 

In the context of Tyrannosaurs like Tarbosaurus, with extremely tiny arms, it just seems that a set of wing feathers would serve little purpose, possibly interfering with what little utility the arms may have served in their diminished state.  Although if there's good fossil evidence in other tyrannosaurids, I'd have no trouble accepting it.

Here's another thought:  how widespread were leg wings?  Should those be more widely applied to reconstructions?  There's certainly a good case for putting them on animals like Velociraptor, the only difficulty is getting it to look natural.

[stargatedalek]

tyrannosaurs most likely had bare legs and thighs
leg wings are a safe bet on any member of eumaniraptora

as for arms, that was kind of my interpretation, that the minimal utility they may have served may have been for display

[stargatedalek]

sorry to bump this, but I felt like giving my thoughts on integument being basal to ornithodira

as some members grew larger and less able to groom themselves it makes sense they would loose soft integument
this makes a great deal of sense for things like sauropods, stegosauria, and ceratopsians

the only evidence that doesn't make sense with soft integument being basal to ornithodira would be the few scaled saurischians we have, but I see no reason to assume they weren't the abnormality amongst the group as a whole
(of course there's no reason to assume they were, but they are hardly convincing evidence on their own)


to sum up, I believe soft integument was basal to ornithodira and that sauropods and the larger members of ornithischia lost it due to their body shapes, with a parallel perhaps being true of some saurischians also

but there's just not enough evidence to claim that this theory is wright or wrong, thus its still that, a theory, as is the contrary idea of soft integument evolving several times independently, neither is objectively correct or incorrect (yet) and so either assertion is relatively valid

[HD-man]

Question: is there any direct evidence for wings on tyrannosaurids?

Nope.

the only evidence that doesn't make sense with soft integument being basal to ornithodira would be the few scaled saurischians we have, but I see no reason to assume they weren't the abnormality amongst the group as a whole
(of course there's no reason to assume they were, but they are hardly convincing evidence on their own)

Actually, to quote Barrett/Evans (See page 82: http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/0d/0d20d609-f7e6-4bb3-a0c4-765fcffde49b.pdf ), "Scales are definitively present in virtually all major ornithischian clades. This, and the presence of extensive armour in thyreophorans suggests that genasaurian skins were primitively scaly. Similarly, sauropodomorphs lack evidence for anything other than scales or osteoderms. Fitch optimization of integument types on dinosaur phylogenies shows that there is no unequivocal support for inferring a deep origin of feather-like structures, a result supported by maximum likelihood ancestral state reconstructions for these characters. The structures in Tianyulong and Psittacosaurus are best regarded as autapomorphic integumentary modifications, and there is currently no strong evidence that these features are feather homologs." The same goes for Kulindadromeus (which probably had "bristle-like scales": http://reptilis.net/2014/07/31/new-siberian-ornithischian-and-the-over-feathering-of-dinosaurs-again/ ).

but there's just not enough evidence to claim that this theory is wright or wrong, thus its still that, a theory,

I know that you actually mean "hypothesis" from your reply in another thread, but newer/younger forum members might not & I don't want them to be confused/misled.

[stargatedalek]

thanks for the links, those were very interesting reads (I'll have to read the rest of the SVP abstract!)

I'm sorry, I should have said hypothesis or theory, that was my bad indeed

I should have mentioned before; in no way do I think this hypothesis is most likely, its definitely a rather speculative and one could say "liberal" approach

[HD-man]

thanks for the links, those were very interesting reads (I'll have to read the rest of the SVP abstract!)

Anytime.

I'm sorry, I should have said hypothesis or theory, that was my bad indeed

It's OK. The important thing is that you know which one's which & use it accordingly.

I should have mentioned before; in no way do I think this hypothesis is most likely, its definitely a rather speculative and one could say "liberal" approach

That's very good to know.

[Manatee]

As for my thoughts on the subject, I really do find the "feather mess"- with Kulindadromeus, scaly Carnotaurus, Yutyrannus, and Deinocheirus's pygostyle- to be quite confusing. I would think pushing the origin of feathers back would make sense (stargatedalek was right- having feathers on gigantic ornithischians makes no sense, and fluffy small thyreophoreans make just as little), but Carnotaurus complicates matters. However, the abelisaurids could certainly be an exception to a feathering rule.