Re: Feathering proof

[Ultimatedinoking]

Ok, I'm here.

[Yutyrannus]

Okay, one thing I should point it is that once a group of animals has evolved feathers, that group cannot re-evolve scales, so whatever coelurosaurs didn't have feathers (and there probably weren't any) would've had skin, sort of like the skin of the legs of an ostrich. And I also point out that there is no evidence that any coelurosaur didn't have feathers.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Okay, one thing I should point it is that once a group of animals has evolved feathers, that group cannot re-evolve scales, so whatever coelurosaurs didn't have feathers (and there probably weren't any) would've had skin, sort of like the skin of the legs of an ostrich. And I also point out that there is no evidence that any coelurosaur didn't have feathers.

We are not just talking about coelurosaurs, and feather lost theropods could have had thick skin with spaced out sweat and hormonal glands. And it is known that carnotaurus had rows of bony bumps along its back. Sauropod lets have been found to have had leathery skin, so sauropod skin would probably have felt like a cross between a football and a piece of untanned leather.

Also, feathers have many costs, they are time consuming to clean, easily damaged, slow to regrow, and are easier to get caught in thorns.

[tyrantqueen]

Okay, one thing I should point it is that once a group of animals has evolved feathers, that group cannot re-evolve scales, so whatever coelurosaurs didn't have feathers (and there probably weren't any) would've had skin, sort of like the skin of the legs of an ostrich. And I also point out that there is no evidence that any coelurosaur didn't have feathers.

I'm not interested in getting embroiled in this argument (I don't have any bias against feathers myself) but I have to say...what are you talking about? Birds do have scales



...even underneath their feathers they have very fine scales.

And I also point out that there is no evidence that any coelurosaur didn't have feathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Yutyrannus]

Yes, birds do have scales on their feet, when I said the legs of an ostrich I meant the legs of an ostrich. Also, evidently the scutes on bird feet are actually closer to feathers than reptilian scales.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jez.b.26/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.01041.x/full

Also, it is not an "argument from ignorance" saying that they had scales is, there is no evidence, at least that I'm aware of and it is far more likely that they had feathers than scales. So next time you wish to correct me on something I've said, how about actually giving evidence for why I'm wrong?

[DinoToyForum]

So next time you wish to correct me on something I've said, how about actually giving evidence for why I'm wrong?

I don't mind this debate continuing so long as it is discussed in a polite and unprovocative manner. Thanks.

[Ultimatedinoking]

So next time you wish to correct me on something I've said, how about actually giving evidence for why I'm wrong?

I don't mind this debate continuing so long as it is discussed in a polite and unprovocative manner. Thanks.

Yes, sir!

[stargatedalek]

I'm not interested in getting embroiled in this argument (I don't have any bias against feathers myself) but I have to say...what are you talking about? Birds do have scales



...even underneath their feathers they have very fine scales.

bird scales are distinctive, and very different from reptile scales
so dinosaurs having scales like birds, would show that they were descended from feathered relatives

personally I think assuming something had feathers is a conservative position, years ago scales were the conservative, but this has changed with evidence of many more groups being feathered

particularly inflexible animals (IE sauropods) I doubt would have had feathers, since unlike fur/hair feathers need to be more thoroughly maintained, feathers have blood vessels that make easy pathways for parasites and infection

I do think that every dinosaur would have possessed the genetic properties of integument in some form, but I think some would have lost the visible features themselves over time

this is bordering on pseudo science, but I believe feathers and pycnofibers have a common ancestor, there is no evidence for nor against this, its just what I chose to presume given our current understanding

[Yutyrannus]

Okay, one thing I should point it is that once a group of animals has evolved feathers, that group cannot re-evolve scales, so whatever coelurosaurs didn't have feathers (and there probably weren't any) would've had skin, sort of like the skin of the legs of an ostrich. And I also point out that there is no evidence that any coelurosaur didn't have feathers.

We are not just talking about coelurosaurs, and feather lost theropods could have had thick skin with spaced out sweat and hormonal glands. And it is known that carnotaurus had rows of bony bumps along its back. Sauropod lets have been found to have had leathery skin, so sauropod skin would probably have felt like a cross between a football and a piece of untanned leather.

Also, feathers have many costs, they are time consuming to clean, easily damaged, slow to regrow, and are easier to get caught in thorns.

We were discussing feathers in tetanurans, not ceratosaurs or sauropods. And for the record I've never thought either of those groups had feathers.

[Yutyrannus]

I'm not interested in getting embroiled in this argument (I don't have any bias against feathers myself) but I have to say...what are you talking about? Birds do have scales



...even underneath their feathers they have very fine scales.

bird scales are distinctive, and very different from reptile scales
so dinosaurs having scales like birds, would show that they were descended from feathered relatives

personally I think assuming something had feathers is a conservative position, years ago scales were the conservative, but this has changed with evidence of many more groups being feathered

particularly immobile animals (IE sauropods) I doubt would have had feathers, since unlike fur/hair feathers need to be more thoroughly maintained, feathers have blood vessels that make easy pathways for parasites and infection

I do think that every dinosaur would have possessed the genetic properties of integument in some form, but I think some would have lost the visible features themselves over time

this is bordering on pseudo science, but I believe feathers and pycnofibers have a common ancestor, there is no evidence for nor against this, its just what I chose to presume given our current understanding

Thanks for posting this, it is actually almost exactly what I was going to say.

EDIT: Also, since Kulindapteryx had those scutes on its feet (the same kind birds have) its ancestors would have had to be feathered as well. Also, since feather-like filaments have been found in pterosaurs, theropods, and ornithopods, it is likely feathers (or feather-like filaments) were evolved by a common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs.

[Ultimatedinoking]

I'm not interested in getting embroiled in this argument (I don't have any bias against feathers myself) but I have to say...what are you talking about? Birds do have scales



...even underneath their feathers they have very fine scales.

bird scales are distinctive, and very different from reptile scales
so dinosaurs having scales like birds, would show that they were descended from feathered relatives

personally I think assuming something had feathers is a conservative position, years ago scales were the conservative, but this has changed with evidence of many more groups being feathered

particularly immobile animals (IE sauropods) I doubt would have had feathers, since unlike fur/hair feathers need to be more thoroughly maintained, feathers have blood vessels that make easy pathways for parasites and infection

I do think that every dinosaur would have possessed the genetic properties of integument in some form, but I think some would have lost the visible features themselves over time

this is bordering on pseudo science, but I believe feathers and pycnofibers have a common ancestor, there is no evidence for nor against this, its just what I chose to presume given our current understanding

Sauropods immobile? They weren't forest potatoes! Do elephants spend all there day sitting down, no, their on the move looking for new leaves. If you want to find a lazy animal, find a predator.

As for pycnofibers and feathers... More likely they evolved independently.

[Trisdino]

I believe in fuzzy sauropods. Yes, I just said that.

Not heavily fuzzy sauropods, of course not, but something akin to an elephant, with a thin covering of protofuzz. And no, that is not unrealistic, or even unprobable, phylogenetic bracketing makes fuzz basal to all dinosaurs, possibly even all achrosaurs, so it seems logical to assume that they had at least some amount of fuzz. Then again, I also belive in fuzzy ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs, and all other forms of dinosaurs. Hell, I would propose a primitive achrosaur, basal to both crocodiles, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs, which is bipedal and covered in fuzz. This fuzz was eventually lost in crocodilyforms, but retained in pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

[Balaur]

I'm not interested in getting embroiled in this argument (I don't have any bias against feathers myself) but I have to say...what are you talking about? Birds do have scales



...even underneath their feathers they have very fine scales.

bird scales are distinctive, and very different from reptile scales
so dinosaurs having scales like birds, would show that they were descended from feathered relatives

personally I think assuming something had feathers is a conservative position, years ago scales were the conservative, but this has changed with evidence of many more groups being feathered

particularly immobile animals (IE sauropods) I doubt would have had feathers, since unlike fur/hair feathers need to be more thoroughly maintained, feathers have blood vessels that make easy pathways for parasites and infection

I do think that every dinosaur would have possessed the genetic properties of integument in some form, but I think some would have lost the visible features themselves over time

this is bordering on pseudo science, but I believe feathers and pycnofibers have a common ancestor, there is no evidence for nor against this, its just what I chose to presume given our current understanding

I wouldn't say that's pseudoscience. Pterosaurs and dinosaurs are closely related afterall.

[Gwangi]

I'm not interested in getting embroiled in this argument (I don't have any bias against feathers myself) but I have to say...what are you talking about? Birds do have scales



...even underneath their feathers they have very fine scales.

bird scales are distinctive, and very different from reptile scales
so dinosaurs having scales like birds, would show that they were descended from feathered relatives

personally I think assuming something had feathers is a conservative position, years ago scales were the conservative, but this has changed with evidence of many more groups being feathered

particularly immobile animals (IE sauropods) I doubt would have had feathers, since unlike fur/hair feathers need to be more thoroughly maintained, feathers have blood vessels that make easy pathways for parasites and infection

I do think that every dinosaur would have possessed the genetic properties of integument in some form, but I think some would have lost the visible features themselves over time

this is bordering on pseudo science, but I believe feathers and pycnofibers have a common ancestor, there is no evidence for nor against this, its just what I chose to presume given our current understanding

Sauropods immobile? They weren't forest potatoes! Do elephants spend all there day sitting down, no, their on the move looking for new leaves. If you want to find a lazy animal, find a predator.

As for pycnofibers and feathers... More likely they evolved independently.

Take it easy, I don't think she meant it quite like that. By immobile I believe she was perhaps trying to say inflexible?

All of this is stemming from a "Jurassic World" poster with a naked Velociraptor. You can drag sauropods and other dinosaurs into this if you want but at the end of the day we know that the animal in the poster had feathers. You can call it a "fuzzy dino craze" but it's really just acknowledging what science is showing us. Even if we don't know what sort of integument many dinosaurs had we at least know that for every coelurosaur for which integument has been preserved, feathers were preserved with it. That is awfully telling.

And before you dish out the naked mammal argument (like you did in the JW thread) maybe take a closer look at them. They have hair too, even if somewhat sparse.

Sumatran Rhino


Naked Mole Rat


Elephant hide


Human (Robin Williams)

[stargatedalek]

yes, inflexible is what I was meaning, thank you
not that they couldn't/didn't move, but that it would have been difficult if not impossible for many species to properly groom themselves at that size

[stoneage]

Robin Williams is not human.  He is an alien named Mork!

[Gwangi]

Robin Williams is not human.  He is an alien named Mork!

Touché

[Yutyrannus]

I believe in fuzzy sauropods. Yes, I just said that.

Not heavily fuzzy sauropods, of course not, but something akin to an elephant, with a thin covering of protofuzz. And no, that is not unrealistic, or even unprobable, phylogenetic bracketing makes fuzz basal to all dinosaurs, possibly even all achrosaurs, so it seems logical to assume that they had at least some amount of fuzz. Then again, I also belive in fuzzy ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs, and all other forms of dinosaurs. Hell, I would propose a primitive achrosaur, basal to both crocodiles, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs, which is bipedal and covered in fuzz. This fuzz was eventually lost in crocodilyforms, but retained in pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

Actually, that is a good point. Sauropods could well have had sparse feathers.

Ultimatedinoking: Even if pterosaur pycnofibers evolved independently from feathers, it is quite clear that some form of filaments were basal to Dinosauria.

[Ultimatedinoking]

yes, inflexible is what I was meaning, thank you
not that they couldn't/didn't move, but that it would have been difficult if not impossible for many species to properly groom themselves at that size

That's what tick pterosaurs are for, just as rhinos get tick theropods.

[Dinoguy2]

I believe in fuzzy sauropods. Yes, I just said that.

Not heavily fuzzy sauropods, of course not, but something akin to an elephant, with a thin covering of protofuzz. And no, that is not unrealistic, or even unprobable, phylogenetic bracketing makes fuzz basal to all dinosaurs, possibly even all achrosaurs, so it seems logical to assume that they had at least some amount of fuzz. Then again, I also belive in fuzzy ankylosaurs, hadrosaurs, and all other forms of dinosaurs. Hell, I would propose a primitive achrosaur, basal to both crocodiles, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs, which is bipedal and covered in fuzz. This fuzz was eventually lost in crocodilyforms, but retained in pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

Actually, that is a good point. Sauropods could well have had sparse feathers.

Ultimatedinoking: Even if pterosaur pycnofibers evolved independently from feathers, it is quite clear that some form of filaments were basal to Dinosauria.

This might be relevant: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-feathered-siberia-dinosaur-scales-science/