Re-issue of Battat former Museum of Science Boston Series

[DinoLord]

As much as we all love discussing various theropod integuments, it's probably best to keep it out of Dan's thread. Outside of the integument the Battat theropods such as the T. rex are pretty much spot-on - the arms and feet are a realistic size and the tails are appropriately thick.

[Sim]

From research I've done on this topic, my understanding is an animal's size can affect its feathering, particularly if the animal lives in a warm environment.  You can see this by looking at ratites which are the largest extant flightless birds.  You can see the larger they get the more reduced their feathering is.  This is mentioned here: http://dinogoss.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/heat-feathers-and-half-arsed.html  It also has pictures of the featherless underwing area of the Ostrich and Greater Rhea.

The bigger an animal gets, the less easily it can lose heat.  This isn't really a problem for animals that live in quite cold environments, like Yutyrannus, but what about those that lived in warm environments?  Feathers could interfere with their ability to effectively radiate heat, and scales found on Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Gorgosaurus on parts of their bodies where Yutyrannus had feathers could be evidence supporting this.  The pygostyle found on Deinocheirus suggests it had a feather fan at the end of its tail.  These feathers wouldn't have interfered with thermoregulation, so while what is known of its feathering is very interesting it doesn't give information on the distribution of feathers for thermoregulation in giant coelurosaurs.  It's worth noting the primitive feathers known in more basal coelurosaurs like tyrannosauroids and compsognathids were probably primarily for insulation.

The scale impressions show us that the underside of the throat, the "belly", and the foot were most likely unfeathered (and if they were it was a secondary feathering like the feet of owls, as well as some breeds of pigeons and chickens).

I'd been wondering where the scale impressions of Tyrannosaurus came from!  For there to be feathers between scales, there would need to be a reason for it, like in owl feet its because owls are farsighted, so the foot feathers allow them to feel caught prey.

As for utahraptor and gallimimus, first off, they aren't particularly small, even in 1:40 scale. Dan has done a great job on them and with or without feathering the two models show a lot of detailing. Secondly the feathering most certainly would show up at that scale, especially on utahraptor, since its the feathering that truly determines the very shape of the animal. This is (roughly, utahraptors skull shape is currently undergoing some changes to understanding) what utahraptor should look like: [ http://emilywilloughby.com/gallery-data/images/full/the-most-accurate-inaccurate-utahraptor.jpg ]. I'm pretty sure that would make a notable difference at any scale. Lastly, neither gallimimus nor utahraptor had "fine feathery filaments", those are the sort of traits that could be applied to primitive feathers such as those on tyrannosauroids. Ornithomimids and dromaeosaurs had feathers which were essentially identical to the feathers of modern birds.

I agree, mostly!  It was actually Greg Wenzel that sculpted the Utahraptor and Gallimimus (and 7 more of the original Battat dinos).  Although I'd like to see Dan do a great job retooling and repainting them!   Yes, as you said, dromaeosaurids and ornithomimosaurs are known to have more complex feathers which along with Gallimimus and Utahraptor's size means these two would most likely have feathers which would be visible in any scale they're sculpted in.  That Utahraptor picture's been updated to incorporate currently unpublished material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor#mediaviewer/File:Utahraptor_updated.png  The feathering reduction on the ostrich makes me think that Utahraptor might be too feathered on the body though.  It's a good picture in any case, except for that hideous feather mohawk which there's no evidence for (no offense meant).

Elephants are not a viable example since they lost their integument because they became aquatic not due to size or climate. Megathere fur (hair?) has been found preserved from very hot arid climates, and that's far less suited to heat loss than feathers are.

Close relatives of gallimimus have been found with complex feathers, more than enough concrete proof. If ornithomimids who split off from dromaeosaurs long before the appearance of microraptor had complex feathers like it that means that everything in between did also. Maybe this will help:

Elephants have hair, its just extremely reduced and it becomes sparser as they grow older.  I've never heard of elephant's hair reduction due to being aquatic?  What about rhinos? 4 of the 5 extant rhino species have little to no body hair, while the other one - the Sumatran rhinoceros - which is the smallest of the 5 and lives at very high altitudes is hairier.  Extant sloths have very low metabolic rates (less than half of that expected for a mammal of their size), and have low body temperatures, so maybe that relates to the megathere hair?  That diagram would be very useful if it didn't have inaccuracies -  carcharodontosaurs are closer to coelurosaurs than megalosaurids are, there's no evidence of feathers in megalosaurids as Sciurumimus has been reclassified as a coelurosaur, and troodontids are believed to be closer to birds than to dromaeosaurids.  Also, Concavenator having quill knobs doesn't seem to be supported much at all now.

I'm also sorry for going off-topic.  It does relate to the Battat Tyrannosaurus reissue discussion though!

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Note, the larger they get, the more reduced their feathering becomes....not non existent, and I believe that is the point here. No matter how large, or the environment, the animal would still retain some feather integument even if minimal. Accepting the feathering is reduced also means accepting it is present. ........and I believe that is the entire point.

[Concavenator]

Some scientists are as sure that Tyrannosaurus had feathers as they are that early humans had hairs.Consider that,Dan,please.

[Sim]

The point is there seems to be a connection with an increase in size leading to a reduction in feathering in animals from warm environments.  Since some coelurosaurs are so much bigger than any bird I wonder if the feathering got reduced to the point there was none on some of these animals.  Especially on ones which come from families which are only known to have primitive feathers which seem to be for insulation, like tyrannosaurs.  It seems like if giant coelurosaurs had feathers and lived in warm environments their feathering would be noticeably less than an ostrich's.

[tyrantqueen]

We do have a thread dedicated to dinosaur integument...it might be a better idea to take the discussion there.

[Doug Watson]

To bring this back to Dan and the Battat reissues, I'll chime in to support Dan's position on feathering as I have said elsewhere I try not to delve into speculation, I try to interpret the fossil evidence sometimes with the help of scientists as Dan does. We are the ones in the end to face the criticism of the parts we know and the parts we don't know and in the end it is our reputation on the line.
One thought on the idea of basing our interpretations on related species. You can be just as wrong interpreting the skin coverings that way. Lets say hypothetically all elephants and rhinos became extinct before recorded history and the only ones we had evidence of skin covering for were the Woolly Mammoth and Woolly Rhinoceros. We would justifiably interpret all other elephants and rhinos as having long woolly insulating fur plus the other adaptations of reduced ear and tail size and as a result we would be wrong. And please I know elephants and rhinos have hair I am talking about the long fur those two developed to face the cold.

[suspsy]

The difference being, however, is that mammoth fur was for insulation, whereas dinosaur feathers were probably more for recognition and display purposes.

Honestly, Doug, I don't think your reputations would take that great of a hit if you were to delve into speculation about dinosaur plumage. Depicting T. Rex and large therizinosaurs with feathers certainly hasn't harmed Luis V. Rey's reputation as an artist. Or Julius Csotonyi's.

[Doug Watson]

The difference being, however, is that mammoth fur was for insulation, whereas dinosaur feathers were probably more for recognition and display purposes.

Honestly, Doug, I don't think your reputations would take that great of a hit if you were to delve into speculation about dinosaur plumage. Depicting T. Rex and large therizinosaurs with feathers certainly hasn't harmed Luis V. Rey's reputation as an artist. Or Julius Csotonyi's.

You seem to have missed my point on the elephants and rhinos but my main intention was to lend my support to Dan since we both feel the same way about interpreting dinosaurs from the fossil evidence. There seems to be a piling on to try and convince him to go against his ideals and I just wanted to add my voice to his support not that he needs any help from me.

[stargatedalek]

Whether I personally agree or not, tyrannosaurs are still a rather unknown group in regards to integument so I can respect whatever interpretation someone may choose, even if I find it less likely.

[suspsy]

The difference being, however, is that mammoth fur was for insulation, whereas dinosaur feathers were probably more for recognition and display purposes.

Honestly, Doug, I don't think your reputations would take that great of a hit if you were to delve into speculation about dinosaur plumage. Depicting T. Rex and large therizinosaurs with feathers certainly hasn't harmed Luis V. Rey's reputation as an artist. Or Julius Csotonyi's.

You seem to have missed my point on the elephants and rhinos

No, I understood your point perfectly; I simply don't agree with your analogy. Even if all elephants and rhinos were long extinct and had never been observed or recorded by mankind, we would still be able to conclude from all the various paleontological evidence that not all species existed in the same harsh climate as Mammothus and Coelodonta, and therefore did not possess the same amount of fur.

but my main intention was to lend my support to Dan since we both feel the same way about interpreting dinosaurs from the fossil evidence. There seems to be a piling on to try and convince him to go against his ideals and I just wanted to add my voice to his support not that he needs any help from me.

And I admire you for that, sir. I don't think anyone here is trying to dictate how you or Dan should create your models. I'm certainly not. People are simply offering their own suggestions, and politely, I might add. If you really feel that strongly about your chosen methods, then by all means, please continue with them. For myself, I am clamping at the bit for my online store of preference to get your Archaeopteryx and Yutyrannus in stock.

[Doug Watson]

No, I understood your point perfectly; I simply don't agree with your analogy. Even if all elephants and rhinos were long extinct and had never been observed or recorded by mankind, we would still be able to conclude from all the various paleontological evidence that not all species existed in the same harsh climate as Mammothus and Coelodonta, and therefore did not possess the same amount of fur.

And there would be a toy forum somewhere where people would debate whether or not all elephants and rhinos had long fur, there would be the no fur camp and the fur camp even though "various paleontological evidence" would suggest some like Tyrannosaurus rex lived in warmer climates and probably didn't have fur and others like Yutyrannus lived in colder climates like the Woolly Mammoth so probably also had fur. Anyway that is my two cents and I don't want to highjack this thread any further. This debate in my opinion is just that, opinion, that is why I prefer actual fossil evidence.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

As was said, no more feather-centric debate here, take to the appropriate threads please. If Dan wants input I'm certain he will ask.

[loru1588]

I always thought 17 was the magic number for Stego plates. I'm working on a large life size one now Dan..can you share the info on the extra ones?   I'm really starting to wonder if the number varied from individual to individual.

Here's a link Chris with a pic as well as the info. < http://www.livescience.com/48801-photos-stegosaurus-skeleton.html >

[dinosaurdungeon]

I always thought 17 was the magic number for Stego plates. I'm working on a large life size one now Dan..can you share the info on the extra ones?   I'm really starting to wonder if the number varied from individual to individual.

Here's a link Chris with a pic as well as the info. < http://www.livescience.com/48801-photos-stegosaurus-skeleton.html >

well we are on the subject of Stegosaurus, does anyone remember some news that they found one in the 40 ft range? if so, what ever happened with that?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Thanks Dan.  Very interesting. Looking at the computor model, it seems the plates go right to the thagomizer.  Is it my imagination, or does neck look a bit longer than what is normally portrayed in Stegosaurus skeletons?



Jason I recall reading posts about larger Stegosaurs..one reason I decided to make ours at the Park here 30'.

[loru1588]

Thanks Dan.  Very interesting. Looking at the computor model, it seems the plates go right to the thagomizer.  Is it my imagination, or does neck look a bit longer than what is normally portrayed in Stegosaurus skeletons?



Jason I recall reading posts about larger Stegosaurs..one reason I decided to make ours at the Park here 30'.

It's a young adult less than 20 feet long so it still may have some juvenile traits!

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

So a longer neck and a less plates are more juvenile traits you think?

[John]

I always thought 17 was the magic number for Stego plates. I'm working on a large life size one now Dan..can you share the info on the extra ones?   I'm really starting to wonder if the number varied from individual to individual.

Here's a link Chris with a pic as well as the info. < http://www.livescience.com/48801-photos-stegosaurus-skeleton.html >

The finished mount has 19 plates,but when the skeleton is shown laid out articulated on a white sheet on the floor,there are only 17.Where did the extra two come from?

[loru1588]

Here's the full article < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/11231863/Worlds-most-complete-stegosaurus-unveiled-by-Natural-History-Museum.html >