Feathers on large ceratopsians?

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

Skin prints of large ceratopsians such as Triceratops show that they had larger scales called tubercles that may have anchored quills. This shows that even the larger ceratopsians had quills and not just Psittacosaurus.

[spinosaurus1]

quills absolutely does not work in this way

[GasmaskMax]

Well personally I very much encourage the theory of large ceratopsians having quill-like protofeathers.

[Neosodon]

I like collecta's interpretation of quills. A small fan of quills on the on the back would make for a nice display. But I can not imagine a reason for the entire animal to be covered in quills. And there is certainly no support for feathers for any group of non therapod dinosaurs.

[GasmaskMax]

I like collecta's interpretation of quills. A small fan of quills on the on the back would make for a nice display. But I can not imagine a reason for the entire animal to be covered in quills. And there is certainly no support for feathers for any group of non therapod dinosaurs.

Thats completely incorrect. Psittacosaurus, tianyulong,and kulindadromeus are all non theropods with direct evidence of feathers. psittacosaurus even being a ceratopsian itself.

[stargatedalek]

I like collecta's interpretation of quills. A small fan of quills on the on the back would make for a nice display. But I can not imagine a reason for the entire animal to be covered in quills. And there is certainly no support for feathers for any group of non therapod dinosaurs.

Thats completely incorrect. Psittacosaurus, tianyulong,and kulindadromeus are all non theropods with direct evidence of feathers. psittacosaurus even being a ceratopsian itself.

No THAT'S completely incorrect. None of those are feathers. The "quills" of Psittacosaurus aren't even synonymous with the soft integument of Kulindadromeus let alone true feathers.

Soft integument =/= feathers.

Skin prints of large ceratopsians such as Triceratops show that they had larger scales called tubercles that may have anchored quills. This shows that even the larger ceratopsians had quills and not just Psittacosaurus.

Again completely false. The "quills" of Psittacosaurus are completely different from the raised scales of derived ceratopsians. Psittacosaurus quills are embedded (fairly deep) below the flesh, scales grow on top of the skin. If these raised scales even were anything noticeable they were like the spines of moloch lizards.

Also please change the title.

I like collecta's interpretation of quills. A small fan of quills on the on the back would make for a nice display. But I can not imagine a reason for the entire animal to be covered in quills. And there is certainly no support for feathers for any group of non therapod dinosaurs.

There is no evidence of any animal ever having the same structures as Psittacosaurus, and given the way they attach deep under the animals skin it's highly unlikely derived ceratopsians with their thick scales would have them. It's just as likely stegosaurs or ankylosaurs would have them, if not more likely since there isn't direct evidence against it like there is for ceratopsians.

[Neosodon]

I like collecta's interpretation of quills. A small fan of quills on the on the back would make for a nice display. But I can not imagine a reason for the entire animal to be covered in quills. And there is certainly no support for feathers for any group of non therapod dinosaurs.

Thats completely incorrect. Psittacosaurus, tianyulong,and kulindadromeus are all non theropods with direct evidence of feathers. psittacosaurus even being a ceratopsian itself.

Quills are not the same as feathers.

[GasmaskMax]

I like collecta's interpretation of quills. A small fan of quills on the on the back would make for a nice display. But I can not imagine a reason for the entire animal to be covered in quills. And there is certainly no support for feathers for any group of non therapod dinosaurs.

Thats completely incorrect. Psittacosaurus, tianyulong,and kulindadromeus are all non theropods with direct evidence of feathers. psittacosaurus even being a ceratopsian itself.

No THAT'S completely incorrect. None of those are feathers. The "quills" of Psittacosaurus aren't even synonymous with the soft integument of Kulindadromeus let alone true feathers.

Soft integument =/= feathers.
Actually, in the case of the smaller ornithopods and psittacosaurus, we cant say exactly what their intingument is because we dont have a complete evolutionary tree or dna. So as much as it may seem determined what these structures are, even scientists are still trying to figure it out. Also there is no evidence against ceratopsians being quilled, even marine mammals like manatees and dolphins retain hair, and they are comparatively even more derived and specialized from their ancestors than psittacosaurus and later ceratopsians.

Skin prints of large ceratopsians such as Triceratops show that they had larger scales called tubercles that may have anchored quills. This shows that even the larger ceratopsians had quills and not just Psittacosaurus.

Again completely false. The "quills" of Psittacosaurus are completely different from the raised scales of derived ceratopsians. Psittacosaurus quills are embedded (fairly deep) below the flesh, scales grow on top of the skin. If these raised scales even were anything noticeable they were like the spines of moloch lizards.

Also please change the title.

I like collecta's interpretation of quills. A small fan of quills on the on the back would make for a nice display. But I can not imagine a reason for the entire animal to be covered in quills. And there is certainly no support for feathers for any group of non therapod dinosaurs.

There is no evidence of any animal ever having the same structures as Psittacosaurus, and given the way they attach deep under the animals skin it's highly unlikely derived ceratopsians with their thick scales would have them. It's just as likely stegosaurs or ankylosaurs would have them, if not more likely since there isn't direct evidence against it like there is for ceratopsians.

[stargatedalek]

That is completely untrue and frankly goes contrary to proper scientific method. Anatomy trumps DNA when it comes to reconstruction, it's as simple as that.

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

I like collecta's interpretation of quills. A small fan of quills on the on the back would make for a nice display. But I can not imagine a reason for the entire animal to be covered in quills. And there is certainly no support for feathers for any group of non therapod dinosaurs.

The quills would be only on these tubercles which were spread pretty widely apart.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The point she has made quite well is they would not be quills, regardless if in a thin strip, one per scale or every other inch, they are still modified scales, not quills. Quills, similar in type to what are found on the single specimen of psittacosaurus appear to be at this point unique to that specimen or possibly to psittacosaurids until or unless more evidence presents itself.

[GasmaskMax]

Hey, theres too many holes in the family tree to know for sure, so its a lot of speculation. This is a topic that requires more evidence to come any solid conclusion on. So for now, just go with what you think seems most plausible at this point, because again we dont know everything on the exact evolution of feathers on dinosaurs.

[Libraraptor]

This touches the very old discussion about the relationship between Ornithischians and Saurischians, doesn´t it?
It is even still suggested by some scientists that "Dinosauria" is an artificial, polyphyletic group.
Or is this obsolete?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Was kind of the point...without evidence it is all speculation. .the evidence all supports and seems to suggest the lack of feathering and quills.....until more is known and new evidence is found quills are speculative ...
@

[GasmaskMax]

Was kind of the point...without evidence it is all speculation. .the evidence all supports and seems to suggest the lack of feathering and quills.....until more is known and new evidence is found quills are speculative ...
@

To be fair whose to say they didnt have both? If there are skin impressions from the main body whose to say true psittacosaurus like quills may have still been present only along the ridge of the tail. And as unlikely as it sounds its still technically plausible, or at least as plausible as spinosaurus having whiskers.

[Sigmasaurus]

Normally, I don't argue about feathers, but for me, the quills that CollectA does on their Ceratopsians looks like something I could imagine seeing on a dinosaur (Not that I am saying I don't like it, It's that I normally picture ceratopsians with CollectA type quills)

[GasmaskMax]

Normally, I don't argue about feathers, but for me, the quills that CollectA does on their Ceratopsians looks like something I could imagine seeing on a dinosaur (Not that I am saying I don't like it, It's that I normally picture ceratopsians with CollectA type quills)

Same here.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Was kind of the point...without evidence it is all speculation. .the evidence all supports and seems to suggest the lack of feathering and quills.....until more is known and new evidence is found quills are speculative ...
@

To be fair whose to say they didnt have both? If there are skin impressions from the main body whose to say true psittacosaurus like quills may have still been present only along the ridge of the tail. And as unlikely as it sounds its still technically plausible, or at least as plausible as spinosaurus having whiskers.

Again, speculation is NOT denying the known evidence in favor of something you would like to think was possible. Dalek has repeatedly stated again and again, we have integument from ceratopsians in precisely the areas collecta is applying their mowhawks, which shows quite well that such integument types did not occur. While the look may be pleasing to you, it is unlikely and further demonstrated as unlikely by evidence.
   Similar to your question about psittacosaurus and feathers....we have a  a three dimensional fossil of a specimen so well preserved we can make out the scales...in fact it is the first dinosaur with known preserved scales. We can see their sizes, patterns, shapes, and yes, we even know the colors for this dinosaur as it is that well preserved. What we do not have are feathers or quills, anywhere except along the tail.So being fair and who is to say , the fossil is to say. The fossil says no feathers, although it is so well preserved we can distinguish the color of each separate scale and area of skin. We KNOW this dinosaur did not have feathers, we have fossil evidence. Speculation is not the process of denying that evidence to suggest something that works better for you . Your spinosaurus may or may not have had whiskers....you may speculate there all you like, because you have no fossil to demonstrtate otherwise, but in the case of psittacosaurus, integument and quills, we have fossils, we have evidence and we can somewhat state what is and was not likely .

[spinosaurus1]

Was kind of the point...without evidence it is all speculation. .the evidence all supports and seems to suggest the lack of feathering and quills.....until more is known and new evidence is found quills are speculative ...
@

To be fair whose to say they didnt have both? If there are skin impressions from the main body whose to say true psittacosaurus like quills may have still been present only along the ridge of the tail. And as unlikely as it sounds its still technically plausible, or at least as plausible as spinosaurus having whiskers.

Again, speculation is NOT denying the known evidence in favor of something you would like to think was possible. Dalek has repeatedly stated again and again, we have integument from ceratopsians in precisely the areas collecta is applying their mowhawks, which shows quite well that such integument types did not occur. While the look may be pleasing to you, it is unlikely and further demonstrated as unlikely by evidence.
   Similar to your question about psittacosaurus and feathers....we have a  a three dimensional fossil of a specimen so well preserved we can make out the scales...in fact it is the first dinosaur with known preserved scales. We can see their sizes, patterns, shapes, and yes, we even know the colors for this dinosaur as it is that well preserved. What we do not have are feathers or quills, anywhere except along the tail.So being fair and who is to say , the fossil is to say. The fossil says no feathers, although it is so well preserved we can distinguish the color of each separate scale and area of skin. We KNOW this dinosaur did not have feathers, we have fossil evidence. Speculation is not the process of denying that evidence to suggest something that works better for you . Your spinosaurus may or may not have had whiskers....you may speculate there all you like, because you have no fossil to demonstrtate otherwise, but in the case of psittacosaurus, integument and quills, we have fossils, we have evidence and we can somewhat state what is and was not likely .

Amen

[stargatedalek]

There is some evidence in favour of Spinosaurus having some kind of sensory organs on its snout, whether whiskers, barbels, pores or what have you, so it's a very bad comparison indeed.