Re: Feathering proof

[wings]

Extremely realistic. It would be unrealistic to think it did not decompose at all before burial/fossilization, seeing that it was submerged in water first.

http://www.montauk-monster.com The Montauk Monster is a good example because this is an animal carcass in the water probably only for a few days before being washed up and partially buried, yet when found most people could not recognize it ands it took experts to identify it as a raccoon. And this is a fresh carcass, not even a fossil, the process of which would inevitably add even more distortion...

Taphonomy - the study of how animals decay under different conditions. Very important for interpreting fossils, yet almost always ignored.

How is this a good example? Here is a  photo of this carcass, without doubt you can see hair/fur on the cheek, lower arm and maybe the base of the tail (see below). If you don't see it then I suppose you just didn't look hard enough. Though it is probably unlikely for much of the soft tissue on this specimen preserve as fossil as it is lying on coarse sandy sediment and quite "expose" to the surrounding as well. Maybe further down the line it would lose these patches completely but neither you or I can guarantee this at this stage of decomposition especially we have no idea the location of the actual specimen at this point. It might be covered up by sediment right after the photo was taken (like a flood) or the specimen was destroyed (either mechanically, bio-mechanically or chemically). Perhaps not long from now the animal would be covered with maggots (notice the fly on the shoulder blade).



Like I said earlier if you are getting this kind of preservation it is unlikely to not get a trace of various integument (perhaps more than one area, which you can see on the mammoth and the carcass above). So no it is still quite an unusual scenario. Here is a quote from Mayr et al. 2002 (see below):

"...The "bristles" extend under this skin layer and nowhere lie above it, which indicates that they were attached to the dorsal midline of the tail only...."

There is no overlapping of these "bristles" at the base (from the photos shown on the paper) so what we have is a single row of these structures. I just find it unusual that the above and below layer of these "bristles" (if any) would came off that cleanly.

As for the rest of the reply I'm not sure if it is even relevant, honestly the identity of this animal is a non-issue. The whole point is whether you can identify the integument (scales, feathers/quills or hair) which I don't really see as a problem on the Psittacosaurus specimen in question.

Taphonomy is important, no doubt. But making careful observation is also essential in this branch of science which unfortunately is often ignored.

[HD-man]

How is this a good example? Here is a  photo of this carcass, without doubt you can see hair/fur on the cheek, lower arm and maybe the base of the tail (see below). If you don't see it then I suppose you just didn't look hard enough.

Not to mention that the rest of the carcass still obviously has hair.

Does this mean that models of Psittacosaurus with tail bristles are wrong? What should the animal be covered in, instead? Should it be covered with feathers from head to toe? Thanks.

We know that most of the body was covered in scales (See "Description": http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/papers/gmayr43.pdf ).

[HD-man]

It's wise to wait for the published paper,

Hence why I said "I'll wait for the paper (& its reviews) before forming an opinion".

One, the statement that they are compound structures means they are more like feathers than known ornithischian quills. Feathers are compound (made of more than one filament), currently-published ornithischian quills don't appear to be. So saying that they're the same as known quills is wrong.

1stly, last I checked, "compound feather-like structures" don't necessarily = "true feathers" (See Longisquama).

2ndly, if "further work on the chemical composition of these structures" shows otherwise, then it won't matter how superficially feather-like they are in appearance.

Two, the Barrett abstract you quote is irrelevant, as it's presented in the same volume. Barrett and co-authors could not have included any information from the new ornithischian in their study.

To paraphrase you, saying that it's irrelevant right now (I.e. B-4 the papers & their reviews have been published) is wrong.

[Dinoguy2]

It's wise to wait for the published paper,

Hence why I said "I'll wait for the paper (& its reviews) before forming an opinion".

One, the statement that they are compound structures means they are more like feathers than known ornithischian quills. Feathers are compound (made of more than one filament), currently-published ornithischian quills don't appear to be. So saying that they're the same as known quills is wrong.

1stly, last I checked, "compound feather-like structures" don't necessarily = "true feathers" (See Longisquama).

Nobody would describe longisquama as having compound structures. Those things are the opposite of compound. Compound means several structures/filaments joined at the base or along a central shaft.

Montauk Monster is a good example because it shows less fur than a live animal would have. Yes I can still see hair there. But it looks nothing like the extensive hair of a living animal. My point is that taphonomy changes the appearance of a dead animal. If you think that based only on that carcass you should show what a live raccoon looks like, well, I don't believe you.

"without doubt you can see hair/fur on the cheek, lower arm and maybe the base of the tail (see below). "
The question is, even if this carcass were suddenly buried in fine silt, would those little patches of hair fossilize or not? We have no clue because nobody has ever studied it. It's possible, but it's also possible some would and some wouldn't. People here seem to be assuming that fossilization in lagerstatten is perfect, when I'm trying to demonstrate that it's imperfect.

We know that most of the body was covered in scales

Which study demonstrates that scales and feathers are mutually exclusive?

To paraphrase you, saying that it's irrelevant right now (I.e. B-4 the papers & their reviews have been published) is wrong.

How could a study presented concurrently with a new piece of relevant data possibly have incorporated that new data in its conclusions?

[wings]

Montauk Monster is a good example because it shows less fur than a live animal would have. Yes I can still see hair there. But it looks nothing like the extensive hair of a living animal. My point is that taphonomy changes the appearance of a dead animal. If you think that based only on that carcass you should show what a live raccoon looks like, well, I don't believe you.

"without doubt you can see hair/fur on the cheek, lower arm and maybe the base of the tail (see below). "
The question is, even if this carcass were suddenly buried in fine silt, would those little patches of hair fossilize or not? We have no clue because nobody has ever studied it. It's possible, but it's also possible some would and some wouldn't. People here seem to be assuming that fossilization in lagerstatten is perfect, when I'm trying to demonstrate that it's imperfect.

Firstly, since when did we debate about the identity of the "Montauk Monster"? Is it even relevant? Did anyone here suggested otherwise? That is just beside the point anyway... Are you trying to say that the Psittacosaurus specimen is not actually a Psittacosaurus even though it has the skeletal morphology of one? In the case here we will just concentrate on the integument as the title of this thread suggested "Feathering proof". Unless your example is about certain scaly integument would give an appearance of a feathery filament-like structure or vice-verse after decomposition / fossilization then that would be a great example.

Secondly, if your statement is directed to what I said; well all I did say was "...what seems unusual about this is that we did not have any "quills" (not a single trace of it) found on this animal apart from what is preserved on the top of the tail...". The key word here is "ANY" and the key phase would be "not a single trace of it" which you have obviously overlooked. And I think the preservation of the Psittacosaurus specimen unusual based on the idea that you presented (mind you that unusual doesn't mean impossible). That is the reason why I said the "Montauk Monster" isn't a perfect example even you would acknowledge the fact that there are "bits" of these integument intact on the specimen ("...Yes I can still see hair there") . You are missing the point here what I was implying is that we don't have "any" hint any where on the body of this Psittacosaurus specimen and the same goes for hadrosaurians as well (in case you might missed it again, the key phase is ANY hint). Based on the photo of the carcass (Montauk Monster); if you look closer we will find that the specimen actually has hair/fur on the body as well (however they are preserved sparsely and we are just talking about at this stage of decomposition as we don't know what happened to it). You don't have to believe me since it was never my claim that I can construct a raccoon based solely on the carcass.

"...They (bristles) are not discernible anywhere else on the tail nor anywhere else on the specimen..." (Mayr et al. 2002)

Lastly, we just have no idea whether these patches would get fossilized or not which is something I said earlier why you would echo what I said is beyond me. It might or it might not and since I haven't seen the current condition of the specimen it would be impossible to tell with any certainty. I'm not sure why you would say that people here seem to be assuming that fossilization in lagerstatten is perfect; since you are just referring to the appearance of the animal as implied from your comment ("...My point is that taphonomy changes the appearance of a dead animal...") I highly doubt that anyone here would think that most of these animals should looked like roadkill in life (this is just a general comment on the appearance of course).

[HD-man]

Nobody would describe longisquama as having compound structures. Those things are the opposite of compound. Compound means several structures/filaments joined at the base or along a central shaft.

I know what a compound structure is, which is why I mentioned Longisquama. Last I checked, its structures can & have been described as such (E.g. "the parting into three longitudinal units begins—the raised anterior and posterior lobes enclose the somewhat recessed, corrugated middle lobe": http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12542-012-0135-3?no-access=true ).

Which study demonstrates that scales and feathers are mutually exclusive?

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. In this case, I never said there was such a study (although there might be & I just don't know about it). I just answered Tyrantqueen's question about what Psittacosaurus is known to have been covered in.

How could a study presented concurrently with a new piece of relevant data possibly have incorporated that new data in its conclusions?

1stly, b/c unlike some ppl, I'm not assuming a priori that the new neornithischian's structures are true feathers.

2ndly, b/c regardless of what said structures are, the Barrett/Evans paper will discuss issues that are obviously relevant to dino integument in general (E.g. "Further work on the chemical composition of these structures, and those in several non-coelurosaurian theropods, is needed.")

[HD-man]

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 can't believe I didn't think of this sooner, but I recently visited Brusatte's website & (as I pointed out earlier in this thread) Dinosaur Paleobiology is labeled a "Technical Book" ( https://sites.google.com/site/brusatte/home/publications ).

Which study demonstrates that scales and feathers are mutually exclusive?

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. In this case, I never said there was such a study (although there might be & I just don't know about it). I just answered Tyrantqueen's question about what Psittacosaurus is known to have been covered in.

I've done some more searching since posting the above quote. Based on what I've read (E.g. See "The feather-scale dichotomy" & the sources therein: http://reptilis.net/2012/07/23/feathers-on-the-big-feathers-on-the-small-but-feathers-for-dinosaurs-one-and-all/ ), "the two integumentary types appear to be mutually exclusive." I also found Jura's "Feathers for Tyrannosaurs" comments & the sources therein to be helpful: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/16/feathers-for-tyrannosaurs/

[wings]

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 can't believe I didn't think of this sooner, but I recently visited Brusatte's website & (as I pointed out earlier in this thread) Dinosaur Paleobiology is labeled a "Technical Book" ( https://sites.google.com/site/brusatte/home/publications ).

Not too sure what this does proof since not every researcher/person is holding the same view as to whether this book is such a technical book... regardless whether you've thought of this sooner or not.

like some of the comments from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaur-Paleobiology-Stephen-L-Brusatte/dp/0470656581/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391325278&sr=1-1&keywords=dinosaur+paleobiology)

"Anyone serious about learning details of dinosaur biology would do no better than to read this book.  Summing Up: Highly recommended.  Upper-division undergraduates through researchers/faculty; general readers."  (Choice, 1 November 2012)

or

"...It is very well written and enjoyable to read - for adults, but without the techno-babble I've been running across in promising-sounding books that turn out to be collections of research papers..."

You, Brusette or some readers might have considered this as a technical publication but certainly there is no consensus on this. The only way to substantiate your claim is when there is "no one" regarding this as a non-technical book which is clearly not the case here.

[HD-man]

Not too sure what this does proof since not every researcher/person is holding the same view as to whether this book is such a technical book... regardless whether you've thought of this sooner or not.

I was originally under the impression that the author confirming that his book is a technical work was enough to say that his book is a technical work. Silly me.

"...It is very well written and enjoyable to read - for adults, but without the techno-babble I've been running across in promising-sounding books that turn out to be collections of research papers..."

As Witton pointed out elsewhere (See "The Godfather of pterosaur books, by the Godfather of pterosaurs": http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.com/2010/01/pterosaur-books-to-know-and-love-part-1_27.html ), Wellnhofer's writing style makes his papers very accessible, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still, by definition, technical works (I.e. They're written primarily for specialists). This brings me back to my original point: While some technical works (including Brusatte's Dinosaur Paleobiology) are more accessible to non-specialists than others, they're still written primarily for specialists, hence why specialists are listed 1st & foremost in every professional description/review I know of (E.g. "This book provides a contemporary review of dinosaur science intended for students, researchers, and dinosaur enthusiasts"; "Upper-division undergraduates through researchers/faculty; general readers"; "It is up-to-date, well-researched and the topics are perceptively argued or discussed, and I would unhesitatingly recommend it, as 'start-up' reading, to my own undergraduates and research students": http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470656581.html ).

[wings]

Well, the whole point is if the book can't convince the idea of it being a "technical literature" to at least some layperson then you probably don't have much of a case here  For me it is more of observers' opinions count and not all of them have the same idea that it is a technical book (Whether the author is trying to make this a technical book is a non issue if not all the readers can see it). I'm not going to do more cutting and pasting since the terms like "general readers" or "dinosaur enthusiasts" were already included from the above comments.

[HD-man]

Well, the whole point is if the book can't convince the idea of it being a "technical literature" to at least some layperson then you probably don't have much of a case here  For me it is more of observers' opinions count and not all of them have the same idea that it is a technical book (Whether the author is trying to make this a technical book is a non issue if not all the readers can see it). I'm not going to do more cutting and pasting since the terms like "general readers" or "dinosaur enthusiasts" were already included from the above comments.

I think I see where you're coming from &, just to clarify, I'm not saying that casual readers & enthusiasts can't or shouldn't try to read technical works, just that the "technical" label is a useful guideline for them. If they can read a given technical work, then good for them, but if not, no surprise there.

[wings]

I think I see where you're coming from &, just to clarify, I'm not saying that casual readers & enthusiasts can't or shouldn't try to read technical works, just that the "technical" label is a useful guideline for them. If they can read a given technical work, then good for them, but if not, no surprise there.

Not necessarily true; as indicated by one of the reviewers on the Amazon page (linked earlier, because it would not have make any sense if someone who has a relatively high academic background to make such a comment if it's not obvious to him...).


He said:"...It is very well written and enjoyable to read - for adults, but without the techno-babble I've been running across in promising-sounding books that turn out to be collections of research papers..."

You might find the book technical and difficult to understand but as I said earlier not everyone holds this view (even for some layperson, comment above). Unfortunately labeling is meaningless unless it conveys the idea (again at least not to everyone).

[HD-man]

Not necessarily true;

Hence why it's a guideline (E.g. "these guidelines don't necessarily apply to all cases": http://wps.ablongman.com/long_johnsonshe_tct_3/108/27795/7115560.cw/index.html ).

[wings]

Hence why it's a guideline (E.g. "these guidelines don't necessarily apply to all cases": http://wps.ablongman.com/long_johnsonshe_tct_3/108/27795/7115560.cw/index.html ).

And it is not just black and white either. So whether it is technical or not there are still conflicting opinions.

I think I see where you're coming from &, just to clarify, I'm not saying that casual readers & enthusiasts can't or shouldn't try to read technical works, just that the "technical" label is a useful guideline for them. If they can read a given technical work, then good for them, but if not, no surprise there.

In addition, you have completely missed the point of the above comments. Being labelled as technical (from your source) does not implied that it is such in this case. Firstly, the term "dinosaur enthusiasts" (from the earlier quotes) was used for someone who has an interest in these animals and no age limitation or education background prerequisite required. So therefore if the book is also catered for them then I highly doubt that the book is just scholar orientated. Secondly, for the term "general reader" (again from the earlier quote), I don't see how this would imply someone who is an expert/specialist/scholar-like on the subject... You probably still don't get it even after the explanation, well... no surprise there.

[Newt]

I have no dog in this fight, but I hope I might offer some clarification.

Whether a work is technical is not a matter of opinion, and is not a matter of target audience or language used.  A technical work offers sources, generally from peer-reviewed publications, for all factual assertions. 

Non-technical:

Sauropods were really, really big.

Technical:

Sauropods were really, really big (Guy 2008; Jerk 1994; Mouth 2011).
Works cited:
Guy, Some.  2008. I found some very large fossil bones and here's what they looked like.  Journal of Show and Tell 8(2):304-311.
Jerk, That.  1994. Bigness in macronarians (Dinosauria:Sauropoda) revisited.  Journal of Old Things Found in the Ground 67(4):25-39.
Mouth, Loud. 2011. Comparison of the sizes of extinct tetrapods with objects familiar to suburbanites. Archaica 19:1-408.

That's all.  Of course, a work's being technical does not guarantee it is accurate, nor is a non-technical work necessarily inaccurate, but with a technical work you are given the means to easily check all assertions made.

[HD-man]

I think I see where you're coming from &, just to clarify, I'm not saying that casual readers & enthusiasts can't or shouldn't try to read technical works, just that the "technical" label is a useful guideline for them. If they can read a given technical work, then good for them, but if not, no surprise there.

In addition, you have completely missed the point of the above comments. Being labelled as technical (from your source) does not implied that it is such in this case.

I was originally under the impression that casual readers & enthusiasts being able to read otherwise technical works was the point of the above comments. Again, silly me.

Firstly, the term "dinosaur enthusiasts" (from the earlier quotes) was used for someone who has an interest in these animals and no age limitation or education background prerequisite required. So therefore if the book is also catered for them then I highly doubt that the book is just scholar orientated.

Where you got that from IDK, given that Wiley-Blackwell did not at all explain what it meant by "dinosaur enthusiasts". In any case, such a definition would be completely ridiculous, given that it's being used as a college textbook (which is another good indicator of a technical work).

Secondly, for the term "general reader" (again from the earlier quote), I don't see how this would imply someone who is an expert/specialist/scholar-like on the subject...

Only if you forget/ignore what I've been saying: While some technical works are more accessible to non-specialists than others, they're still written primarily for specialists; This is implied by every professional description/review of Brusatte's Dinosaur Paleobiology I know of in that they mention "dinosaur enthusiasts" & "general readers" (showing that it's more accessible to them than other technical works), but only after various specialists (showing that it's still written primarily for them).

Also, that reminds me: I mentioned this elsewhere ( http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=177.100 ), but just to clarify, I use "casual readers" & "enthusiasts" as they're used in Miller's "Paleo Reading List" ( http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html ).

You probably still don't get it even after the explanation, well... no surprise there.

Now I remember why I don't like debating you: Not only is the above quote condescending, but also hypocritical, given that you've spent this thread not getting things that are obvious to others (E.g. Why the quality of one's sources is relevant, Why print-on-demand popular books are more expensive than regular popular books, etc). Given your attitude AWA your inability/unwillingness to see what others mean or where they're coming from, debating you further would be pointless. Consider yourself ignored.

[wings]

I was originally under the impression that casual readers & enthusiasts being able to read otherwise technical works was the point of the above comments. Again, silly me.

That's all right, now you get it 

Where you got that from IDK, given that Wiley-Blackwell did not at all explain what it meant by "dinosaur enthusiasts". In any case, such a definition would be completely ridiculous, given that it's being used as a college textbook (which is another good indicator of a technical work).

As from the above comment that you have misunderstood what has been said so I would get into the definition again since we both have a different opinion on the term. However, a book being used as a college textbook does not indicate whether a book is technical or not; perhaps all it does is to show that it is educational and beneficial to the students.

Only if you forget/ignore what I've been saying: While some technical works are more accessible to non-specialists than others, they're still written primarily for specialists; This is implied by every professional description/review of Brusatte's Dinosaur Paleobiology I know of in that they mention "dinosaur enthusiasts" & "general readers" (showing that it's more accessible to them than other technical works), but only after various specialists (showing that it's still written primarily for them)...

All can be said is "accessibility" does not equal to whether the article is technical or not. I've answered this from an earlier comment so I wouldn't get into this again.

...Consider yourself ignored.

Please do, the feeling is mutual that is why I've ignored your PM ages ago though you would try to get around it and PM me via another member. Also I think this conversation was ended a while back but somehow you've brought it up again...

[HD-man]

Whether a work is technical is not a matter of opinion, and is not a matter of target audience or language used.  A technical work offers sources, generally from peer-reviewed publications, for all factual assertions.

That's another good indicator of a technical work, & 1 that I forgot about, so many thanks for that. I should add the caveat, though, that some popular books (E.g. Those for "the enthusiast": http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html ) do something similar (E.g. From Scotchmoor et al.'s Dinosaurs: The Science Behind the Stories: http://envs.emory.edu/faculty/MARTIN/ResearchDocs/Martin2002.pdf ). Even still, IDK of any popular books that cite their sources w/actual citations as you described.

Technical:

Sauropods were really, really big (Guy 2008; Jerk 1994; Mouth 2011).
Works cited:
Guy, Some.  2008. I found some very large fossil bones and here's what they looked like.  Journal of Show and Tell 8(2):304-311.
Jerk, That.  1994. Bigness in macronarians (Dinosauria:Sauropoda) revisited.  Journal of Old Things Found in the Ground 67(4):25-39.
Mouth, Loud. 2011. Comparison of the sizes of extinct tetrapods with objects familiar to suburbanites. Archaica 19:1-408.

Funny stuff. Again, many thanks for that.

[wings]

Whether a work is technical is not a matter of opinion, and is not a matter of target audience or language used.  A technical work offers sources, generally from peer-reviewed publications, for all factual assertions.

This has become another criteria that hasn't been mentioned, as noted from previous comment we have been concentrating on content readability instead of how it "laid out" (I think it is layman friendly while HD-man think it is difficult to understand which is again different from your example).  Now this definition is also based on personal criteria (I'm not sure whether it is a set rule that a non-technical book can't have sources/references or "factual assertions" about the text listed or just the way these info are listed). Non-technical books (that offer sources) like these do exist; books that come to mind would be "The dinosaur heresies" by Bakker (see http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-lit/books/#TDH, notice how Mike refers this book as an entry point before you get into the "detailed technical material" so I would assume that he thinks Bakker's as non-technical (at least style wise) although Bakker has a "source list"), "The world of Bats - The flying goblins of the night" by Richarz and Limbrunner or "Kingfishers and Kookaburras" by Hollands (at least I think these are non-technical books). As to peer-reviewed, I'm not sure whether the current book (Dinosaur Paleobiology) in question has...

On this matter my main concern is more on the style of writing (i.e. not much technical jargon, easy to understand) on whether the book was written in a way that a layperson could enjoy. For me the layout is rather secondary. Also I would think that (though I'm sure that not everyone would agree with this) a technical article (for this thread) seems to be often refer to articles that is based on original research (primary source) rather than secondary info.

[DinoToyForum]

I have no dog in this fight, but I hope I might offer some clarification.

Whether a work is technical is not a matter of opinion, and is not a matter of target audience or language used.  A technical work offers sources, generally from peer-reviewed publications, for all factual assertions. 

Non-technical:

Sauropods were really, really big.

Technical:

Sauropods were really, really big (Guy 2008; Jerk 1994; Mouth 2011).
Works cited:
Guy, Some.  2008. I found some very large fossil bones and here's what they looked like.  Journal of Show and Tell 8(2):304-311.
Jerk, That.  1994. Bigness in macronarians (Dinosauria:Sauropoda) revisited.  Journal of Old Things Found in the Ground 67(4):25-39.
Mouth, Loud. 2011. Comparison of the sizes of extinct tetrapods with objects familiar to suburbanites. Archaica 19:1-408.

That's all.  Of course, a work's being technical does not guarantee it is accurate, nor is a non-technical work necessarily inaccurate, but with a technical work you are given the means to easily check all assertions made.

Now, there are some references SV-POW really need to cite.