True or false -Derived ceratopsian quills Poll

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I had suggested the concept of a thread dedicated to inaccuracy in toys, based on companies, which the admins have suggested would be  negative breeding ground. While I take some issue with the idea and feel that negative is a function of people's separate ways of responding to various situations, I do wish to stay within the rules here. I keep wondering if Marsh had been told to sit down, and that his adjusting Cope's reconstruction of his fossil, would be taken negatively , if he had returned to his seat, what a huge loss for paleontology as a science.

     After mulling it around I have determined instead to clarify the science or the concept behind some common and often seen issues with dinosaur models.So this is what this thread is about. I am going to take a given practice in a toyline or company, that is seen in dinosaur models and provide evidence for or against it. Or I may simply point to it and ask others to give it their best shot.

   These are the rules, for these threads. You are not allowed to name a specific model, or company at all . We are debunking the science, not the companies or specific models.  The second rule is to understand debunking. It is a word that has been tossed around a lot lately and with little concept what it means. Debunking something is not denying it. It is bringing to the table evidence, facts, transparent , verifiable scientific understanding that anyone can independently verify the results for.Ideally, quoting papers, showing fossils, articles or comments by paleontologists are great methods for supporting a point of view.  It is my idea that after a fair amount of time for everyone to bring their evidence and facts to the table, a poll will be given. We as a forum can vote.... In this way the forum can perhaps arrive at a consensus on many given debates, and use these threads as an educational tool to further understanding. In  a perfect world, someone could then email a link to any given thread to a toymaker,artist or even writer  and ask them to consider the discussion as valid input.



      The first theory I am going to work with, is the quilling method we see in some companies release of ceratopsian dinosaurs. There are at least a few companies that do so, actually . This trait has been nicknamed "the Mohawk" by a forum member here so we will go with that.We also see that present in some artwork and drawings as well. It is not a trait specific to toys.


  In 2005 at a mineral and fossil show in Tucson Arizona, a specimen of Psittacosaurus in a slab was brought to market. As the story unfolded it became apparent that the dinosaur had likely been smuggled out of China illegally. It was examined in Italy by various scientists who were all stunned to find the dinosaur had what appeared to be a brushy integument to its tail. The specimen was then placed in the Senckenberg Museum of Germany, where it now resides. Once it arrived there, it was professionally prepped extensively and then studied. There are two papers so far to date studying the dinosaur, the first of course dedicated to its brushy tail, and the second to its scales, patterns and preservation of color features.
   A breeze of change went through the dinosaur community as many companies began modeling all psittacosaurs with this type of integumented tail. Then some companies began taking it a step further and placing these quills on other ceratopsians, feeling that psittacosaurus must be related to more advanced ceratopsians, and therefore they also would share this feature. The issue became further clouded with the discovery of Triceratops Lane and its scale impressions. Dr. Bob Bakker suggested the large scales within the cast, might well have served as points of attachment for quills. Since then some toy companies have begun placing this speculative feature on their various ceratopsid models, constantly.
  Another point worth noting....this was a single fossil. There are somewhere between 9 and 16 species of psittacosaurus known depending on the day of the week, the direction the wind is blowing and what you had for lunch. It is no certain thing that all species had quills, nor is it a given that if they were all quilled, they each had quills in the same places, or same lengths or patterns. In fact most animals today that have display structures are defined by their differences in them.
    Of further interest is the heterodontosaurid line which is considered by many to have given rise to the early basal ceratopsians. A fossil belonging to a dinosaur named Tianyulong was discovered, and is indeed covered in places with what appear to be similar quills. When Paul Sereno reconstructed Sam, or Pegomastax as it was named, despite the fossil being based only on jaw elements, as it was a heterodontosaurid, he chose to have the reconstruction quilled heavily.
  While the oldest known and most basal ceratopsian found, Yinlong was not found with quills, that may be a preservational relic or simply the effects of the taphonic processes for its burial. So far we have no direct fossil evidence for quills in Yinlong.
    The issue with psittacosaurus being directly linked to more derived ceratopsians , and therefore sharing its quilled traits with them is problematic at best. Psittacosaurus was known to have evolved the fenestrae between the eye and nasal out, and further to have also evolved into a four digit, hand and foot configuration. In fact the fourth digit on psittacosaurus hands had also become vestigal and lacked a claw, suggesting this dinosaur given time might have well become a three clawed fingered animal. Since we know that the primitive trait for ceratopsians is to have the fenerstrae between the eye and nasal, present, as well as being five digited, and that more derived ceratopsians retained these features, it underlines the concept that psittacosaurus was in fact a dead end in the chain and likely took with it, its quills. Unless evoloution made an extreme u turn, first evolving away these features, and then reintroducing them, psittacosaurus could not have been ancestral to more derived ceratopsians.
  If one accepts the triceratops Lane evidence, you have a cast of scales that has large scales which have raised centers. It was suggested these were attachment points for the quills, although there is no evidence for this beyond a speculative comment from Bakker, who I think most would agree , is adept at making ....at times speculative comments to be generous with the term.
  Even if you were to accept the heterodontosaurid method for quilling, which was a general body covering of quills for the heterodontosaurid family, which scientists suggest were ancestral to the  ceratopsian family, or the Lane method of quilling, neither one is the Mohawk we are seeing in many models issued today. Indeed the only dinosaur known to have had the mohawk style quills was this one species of psittacosaurus which can evidentially be shown were not ancestral to more derived ceratopsians.

THE EVIDENCE

Psittacosaurus skull showing no fenestrae between the nasal and eye orbit


Second side view, psittacosaurus skull. Make note of the entirely missing fenestrae


Triceratops skull, make note of fenestrae present between nasal and eye orbit



Artist's reconstruction of pegomastax, make note of quills covering entire animal



Triceratops "Lane" scale section. Make note of the larger central scales with raised centers, which were suggested to be attachment points for quills. Also make note this is the section that would have been centered over the rear hips directly where the "mohawk " is generally sculpted in some models.





High resoloution image from the paper studying the quilled specimen of psittacosaurus, showing the quills attach under the tissue, almost reaching the vert processes. They are not attached to raised central points on a scale clearly.


Psittacosaurus hands and feet, digits are four for each. Hands show the missing or fourth digit, which has no bone nor claw to preserve.




Triceratops foot, five digits More derived ceratopsian


Protoceratops foot, five digits  Less derived ceratopsian


Fossil of Tianyulong, quills present in several areas of the body


Fossil of Yinlong  No quills


Ceratopsian family tree, make note it is constantly changing, but for our purposes the basic animals discussed here are suitably well placed to give the proper perspective



PAPERS
Note, each link is for the named paper, and is a free download.

Bristle-like integumentary structures at the tail of the horned dinosaur Psittacosaurus

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/papers/gmayr43.pdf



The second paper is posted below by Dr. Admin as my own link apparently expired .

[DinoToyForum]

You need a third option, 'don't mind, the evidence is inconclusive', for the Mowhawk agnostics, as this isn't an all or nothing scenario. Personally, I like mine either way. It is nice to have variation between figures. Speculation is a part of palaeoart (for palaeoart is what we are really talking about) that I like to embrace. I feel the same way about feathered T. Rexes and other things that get some folks riled up.

I'm for constructive discussion, but the way you have framed the poll is divisive and provides no room to meet in the middle. This leads inevitably to arguments between the few individuals that are heavily invested, while those that are not invested, the majority of the community I should think, suffer another argumentative thread in which our hobby is taken too seriously.

so, I think you should either add that third option for people like me, or we decide to drop the poll entirely. If this goes downhill quickly I'll lock the thread. Thanks.

Edit, I also meant to add that 'Junk it' means 'to discard' in my eyes, 'to throw on the scrap heap', so a more appropriate phrase might be found for those voting in favour of the hypothesis.

[Dinoguy2]

I agree, there's no way to debunk something that's purely based on inference and is basically within the range of artistic license. It would be like trying to debunk a particular color scheme. Yeah some might be slightly more or less likely for a given environment, but at the end of the day it comes down to an artistic choice.

In my opinion, it's good that we're seeing some minimally feathered ornithiscian toys, to help get across the fact that we now know some ornithischians had feathers. Given that we just learned this s few years ago, it could be decades before we can debunk any given portrayal the way we can for some maniraptorans groups. It's only recently that we can say with some confidence that many of Paul's 1988 raptor drawings were not feathered enough, for example, almost 20 years later.

Maybe in 20 years well look back and laugh at these early attempts. "Didn't they know most chasmosaurines had huge quill plumes growing in a sun spray pattern around the frill between the epiossifications?"

[amargasaurus cazaui]

You need a third option, 'don't mind, the evidence is inconclusive', for the Mowhawk agnostics, as this isn't an all or nothing scenario. Personally, I like mine either way. It is nice to have variation between figures. Speculation is a part of palaeoart (for palaeoart is what we are really talking about) that I like to embrace. I feel the same way about feathered T. Rexes and other things that get some folks riled up.

I'm for constructive discussion, but the way you have framed the poll is divisive and provides no room to meet in the middle. This leads inevitably to arguments between the few individuals that are heavily invested, while those that are not invested, the majority of the community I should think, suffer another argumentative thread in which our hobby is taken too seriously.

so, I think you should either add that third option for people like me, or we decide to drop the poll entirely. If this goes downhill quickly I'll lock the thread. Thanks.

Edit, I also meant to add that 'Junk it' means 'to discard' in my eyes, 'to throw on the scrap heap', so a more appropriate phrase might be found for those voting in favour of the hypothesis.

I made both of the suggested changes as requested .  I will message with a few other questions I do have. thanks

[DinoToyForum]

Thanks for manipulating the poll, however, the options are not mutually exclusive, due to the word "plausible". options B and C both sum up my opinion: "The quills are plausible based on the evidence" and/but "I remain unconvinced either way and have no preference"

[Alexxitator]

I have no opinion one way or the other. What I wish to thank you for, however, is the educative first post in this thread where several forms of evidence and reasoning behind it are made visual for us less informed folk.
Funny thing is I am working on a homemade family of Leptoceratops, and this thread made me decide to do yet more research on them 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I have no opinion one way or the other. What I wish to thank you for, however, is the educative first post in this thread where several forms of evidence and reasoning behind it are made visual for us less informed folk.
Funny thing is I am working on a homemade family of Leptoceratops, and this thread made me decide to do yet more research on them 

Thanks for the kind words Alex. As Adam pointed out and i had missed, having no opinion either way is an option I missed. I did my best to present it fairly and accurately and make it evidence based. I just hope that whatever i missed others can offer

[DinoToyForum]

The way you have worded the poll now is much better  I changed option C slightly to reflect the evidence. I also opened the poll, which was locked. 

I'm voting C.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I agree, there's no way to debunk something that's purely based on inference and is basically within the range of artistic license. It would be like trying to debunk a particular color scheme. Yeah some might be slightly more or less likely for a given environment, but at the end of the day it comes down to an artistic choice.

In my opinion, it's good that we're seeing some minimally feathered ornithiscian toys, to help get across the fact that we now know some ornithischians had feathers. Given that we just learned this s few years ago, it could be decades before we can debunk any given portrayal the way we can for some maniraptorans groups. It's only recently that we can say with some confidence that many of Paul's 1988 raptor drawings were not feathered enough, for example, almost 20 years later.

Maybe in 20 years well look back and laugh at these early attempts. "Didn't they know most chasmosaurines had huge quill plumes growing in a sun spray pattern around the frill between the epiossifications?"

I offer that artistic license is a balance between what could be, might be and what is somewhat solidly identified as unlikely. I do not think a person would place wings or fins on a triceratops because the evidence shows us otherwise, and in the case I have presented I do offer there is quite a bit of tangible evidence offered to suggest the quills are somewhat out of place. It is of course an open ended question, and I hope there is other evidence I lack myself.
  The quills at least within this specimen have not been stated as analgous to feathers, and the quilling seen in heterodontosaurids remains a tantalizing and problematic question. I so far have seen no direct evidence to make the leap and state they are analgous to feathers. If it has been written or given it would be great to add to the topic. I know that Kulindrdromeus did give some new insights.
   I do hope you read or review the papers I posted, because this psittacosaurus specimen goes to the same level or beyond anything that exists for any known dinosaur fossil wether maniraptor or otherwise.In short it is the only known dinosaur fossil with preserved actual scales. We are also given the scale pattern, coloring and integument as well as the brushy tail. It is one of two dinosaurs that is not a theropod and which we do have colors for. It is quite unique and gives us alot of really great information.The day is already here when we can debunk and state somewhat realistically, for this one little dinosaur , what it looked like . I am glad to be living in these times when we have such great materials to work with. I myself would not mind feathered chasmosaurines if we can find the evidence for it, they would be quite unique,

[DinoToyForum]

I couldn't find the free link to the second paper, so because I love you all:

http://dinotoyblog.com/pdfs/lingham_soliar&plodowski_2010_psittacosaurus.pdf

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I couldn't find the free link to the second paper, so because I love you all:

http://dinotoyblog.com/pdfs/lingham_soliar&plodowski_2010_psittacosaurus.pdf

How very odd, the link for both shows and works clearly on my own screen, oh well sorry if I missed it then and thanks for placing it

[DinoToyForum]

I couldn't find the free link to the second paper, so because I love you all:

http://dinotoyblog.com/pdfs/lingham_soliar&plodowski_2010_psittacosaurus.pdf

How very odd, the link for both shows and works clearly on my own screen, oh well sorry if I missed it then and thanks for placing it

The second link goes to the abstract for me.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Ah yes, you are correct. I will just remove my link, it even says abstract on it. I wonder what happened there..and thanks for helping

[Concavenator]

I personally think it's possible at least.I don't think ceratopsians used their horns as defenses against predators,hence I think they had quills for defense.Also,since earlier ceratopsians had also quills,why not the more advanced ones too?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I personally think it's possible at least.I don't think ceratopsians used their horns as defenses against predators,hence I think they had quills for defense.Also,since earlier ceratopsians had also quills,why not the more advanced ones too?

Anything is possible, but only having a small brush of them on the middle of the back would not be much of a weapon ....it would seem more practical to be on the tail similar to psittacosaurus or further forward to protect the neck rather than centered directly over the area where the spine would be thickest and most difficult to bite. There was also only one early ceratopsian found with quills, and it seems unlikely it was related to later species.

[Gwangi]

I voted for option C. For the sake of artistic license and speculation I don't mind the quills. That said, I don't think there is any good evidence that derived ceratopsians had them, I certainly don't think they had them just because Psittacosaurus did. It is more important to me that people realize these quills presented in paleo-art are pure speculation and only that. Aesthetically I prefer ceratopsian models without quills but it's not a deal breaker if they do, I love the Kaiyodo Capsule Q set.

[stargatedalek]

I also voted for the third option. However I would also like to note that I don't think quills are a possibility along the backs of advanced ceratopsians. The thick scales we have impressions of just don't leave enough space to have quills. If any advanced ceratopsians had quills I think they would be along the animals throat. So not enough to say that quills are not present, but enough to say that if they were they were not widespread.

[Paleogene Pals]

I voted for the third option too. More evidence is needed, but I have no horse in this race.

[Concavenator]

I personally think it's possible at least.I don't think ceratopsians used their horns as defenses against predators,hence I think they had quills for defense.Also,since earlier ceratopsians had also quills,why not the more advanced ones too?

Anything is possible, but only having a small brush of them on the middle of the back would not be much of a weapon ....it would seem more practical to be on the tail similar to psittacosaurus or further forward to protect the neck rather than centered directly over the area where the spine would be thickest and most difficult to bite. There was also only one early ceratopsian found with quills, and it seems unlikely it was related to later species.

Then,why would the quills make sense on Psittacosaurus.Not every ceratopsian used their horns as a weapon,note Kosmoceratops' apparently useless horns.And Diabloceratops'.More evidence is surely needed,but if anything I'd think it's more likely if they had.

[Gryphoceratops]

I personally think it's possible at least.I don't think ceratopsians used their horns as defenses against predators,hence I think they had quills for defense.Also,since earlier ceratopsians had also quills,why not the more advanced ones too?

Anything is possible, but only having a small brush of them on the middle of the back would not be much of a weapon ....it would seem more practical to be on the tail similar to psittacosaurus or further forward to protect the neck rather than centered directly over the area where the spine would be thickest and most difficult to bite. There was also only one early ceratopsian found with quills, and it seems unlikely it was related to later species.

Then,why would the quills make sense on Psittacosaurus.Not every ceratopsian used their horns as a weapon,note Kosmoceratops' apparently useless horns.And Diabloceratops'.More evidence is surely needed,but if anything I'd think it's more likely if they had.

"Quills" that you see on Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong were probably not for defense.  They were made from thin material similar to what scales and feathers are made of.  They were more likely for display.  You are probably right that large ceratopsians used their horns as a display adaptation too.  Keep in mind, however, that this does not mean they wouldn't use them as weapons against each other, or predators either.  Look at any animal alive today with horns- bison, gazelle, giraffe, water buffalo (have sideways-facing horns) even some species of lizards- they all will use those horns as weapons. (yes even lizards.  Look up how Galapagos iguanas fight if you don't believe me.)  I have actually seen a video of a thomson's gazelle chasing a jackal away from her baby by running with her snout pointed towards its chest so the backwards facing horns were in front to deal damage.

You brought up Kosmoceratops and that it probably couldn't use its horns to fight.  We have no clue how that species of dinosaur conducted itself with regards to intraspecies conflict.  Maybe two males stood side by side and whacked each other with sideways motions? Against predators, sideways-facing horns can provide a deterrent from the predator getting to close to the face- a vulnerable part.  Remember,defensive weapons aren't meant to go on the attack, they are meant to keep predators away as much as possible.  In evolution, most of what we see evolves to help an animal ultimately pass on its genes.  That being said, the horns and frills probably did evolve as a result of display and mate choice (why else would they be so variable?) but don't assume a dinosaur wouldn't turn around and use them to hurt you if you ticked it off! 

Amargasaurus- the photo you have of the Pegomastax sculpture with quills all over the body- That sculpture is by paleoartist Tyler Keillor.  I know him through working on my website and have promoted his projects a few times in the past.  I actually asked him about his reconstructing quills on that sculpture specifically.  He replied to me that the quill structures are in no way reflective of fossil evidence of pegomastax, which didn't preserve any.  They are purely speculation based on Tianyulong.