Feathers on large ceratopsians?

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

If ceratopsians did have quills, they would look similar to the one featured in the last episode of Dinosaur Revolution or Saurian.

[Flaffy]

Saurian's triceratops doesn't have quills

[Dinoguy2]

If the bumps on Triceratops skin impressions anchored some kind of pointy structure, they'd be spines, not quills. Which seems plausible but not currently supported by actual evidence.

As for homology between ornithischian integument and feathers, this needs more study. You can find lots of papers out there asserting that pterosaur fuzz is not homologous with feathers because the fibers are not hollow. But this ignores a lot of research that actually found examples of pterosaur fibers which ARE hollow. And even if they are hollow, it's hard to prove a connection with birds - the "parafeathers" of Longisquama are also hollow, and the scientists who found this result were not BANDits (they suggested hollow-based integument must have evolved multiple times).

Without DNA, it will be almost impossible to prove homology between any of the various archosaur integuments. And that includes things like Beipiaosaurus quills.

[ZoPteryx]

Without DNA, it will be almost impossible to prove homology between any of the various archosaur integuments. And that includes things like Beipiaosaurus quills.

Well, with a bit of luck, maybe we'll soon have testable collagen sequences for these groups.

[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.

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 .

If the scales are indeed known from portion of the body than I will agree your point is valid.I dragged this argument on way longer than was needed so I apologize.

[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.

There is Kulindadromeus, Tianyulong, and Psittacosaurus.

[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.

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.

Here is a diagram of the feathers on dinosaurs.

[stargatedalek]

That diagram is incorrect in many, many ways.

Psittacosaurus quills are not in any way related to the quills associated with early feathers, or the quills of Tianyulong. They are entirely distinct.

The quills of Tianyulong and "fluff" of Kulindadromeus may share a common physical ancestor with theropods, or that ancestry may be entirely genetic.

There aren't any filamentous feathers known from Megalosauroidea, I'm going to assume this a dated element rather than an extremely liberal assumption because Kulindadromeus is not included in the chart and it's probably the best evidence of a potential "feathered" ancestor within dinosauria.

See my post here:
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5543.msg166530#msg166530

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

That diagram is incorrect in many, many ways.

Psittacosaurus quills are not in any way related to the quills associated with early feathers, or the quills of Tianyulong. They are entirely distinct.

The quills of Tianyulong and "fluff" of Kulindadromeus may share a common physical ancestor with theropods, or that ancestry may be entirely genetic.

There aren't any filamentous feathers known from Megalosauroidea, I'm going to assume this a dated element rather than an extremely liberal assumption because Kulindadromeus is not included in the chart and it's probably the best evidence of a potential "feathered" ancestor within dinosauria.

See my post here:
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5543.msg166530#msg166530

If you look at the feather of a bird, the middle shaft is a quill. Quills on ornithoscelidans are simply these feathers minus the parts that extend from the quill.

[stargatedalek]

That diagram is incorrect in many, many ways.

Psittacosaurus quills are not in any way related to the quills associated with early feathers, or the quills of Tianyulong. They are entirely distinct.

The quills of Tianyulong and "fluff" of Kulindadromeus may share a common physical ancestor with theropods, or that ancestry may be entirely genetic.

There aren't any filamentous feathers known from Megalosauroidea, I'm going to assume this a dated element rather than an extremely liberal assumption because Kulindadromeus is not included in the chart and it's probably the best evidence of a potential "feathered" ancestor within dinosauria.

See my post here:
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5543.msg166530#msg166530

If you look at the feather of a bird, the middle shaft is a quill. Quills on ornithoscelidans are simply these feathers minus the parts that extend from the quill.

Quills = feathers lionfish are birds confirmed. Not everything called a damned quill is a feather shaft, the term is more literary than it is scientific.

They aren't related to feathers. These are morphologically distinct structures.

[PaleoMatt]

Of course, porcupines are birds! What are you talking about?

[Dinoguy2]

That diagram is incorrect in many, many ways.

It's not incorrect, it's just illustrating one of several possible hypotheses. There's a HUGE difference between "hypothesis that needs more testing" and "wrong".

Here's a much better diagram. Of course the Concavenator thing is still controversial, but since the original authors are still actively studying and presenting evidence for their hypothesis and nobody has published a peer-reviewed refutation, the key is "controversial" not "wrong". This isn't like climate science or BAND where its a vocal minority vs. the scientific community. We're looking at a question that about 4 people have examined in depth and have only reported on preliminarily.

Psittacosaurus quills are not in any way related to the quills associated with early feathers, or the quills of Tianyulong. They are entirely distinct.

Where has this been demonstrated? I know the argument is that they "seem" to be coming from beneath the dermal tissue, but couldn't this just be an artifact of the way the specimen was flattened? That is, the quills are not on the dorsal midline, but are stemming from the skin along the sides of the tail? So when it was flattened it looks like their bases are "inside" the tail?

By the way, if they really ARE coming from inside the tail, they're not integument at all - they'd have to be internal fibers of some kind. By definition, integument comes from the skin. They'd be more like the spines of Amargasaurus, or more likely frayed ligaments. But the fact that the skin envelope seems to be intact implies that they must just be stemming from the sides of the tail.

The quills of Tianyulong and "fluff" of Kulindadromeus may share a common physical ancestor with theropods, or that ancestry may be entirely genetic.

I'm sorry, does this mean anything? What is the difference between "physical" ancestry and genetic ancestry? All shared traits are due to genetics. Genetic ancestry is the only kind of ancestry there is.

Example: Snakes still have the genes for legs. If a lineage of snakes re-evolved legs, that is still the same homologous structure as their ancestors had. There's no such thing as devolution, so traits can appear, disappear, and re-appear. If it's the same gene, it's the same structure. That's what homology is.

There aren't any filamentous feathers known from Megalosauroidea, I'm going to assume this a dated element rather than an extremely liberal assumption because Kulindadromeus is not included in the chart and it's probably the best evidence of a potential "feathered" ancestor within dinosauria.

This depends on the placement of Sciurumimus as a megalosaur. Again, one hypothesis among several that is in need of further testing. Just because the newest papers disagree with a hypothesis doesn't mean the science is settled. That's the ridiculous pop-sci news fallacy of "this week chocolate is good for you! Last week it was bad for you!"

Right now, the best analysis says Sciurumimus is a basal coelurosaur. But there's a lot of hints that what we think of as basal coelurosaurs /coelurids / compsognathids might really be an ontogenetic "grade" spread out among various theropod lineages. This idea has yet to actually be tested, so once again, we can't say it's "wrong".

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

That diagram is incorrect in many, many ways.

It's not incorrect, it's just illustrating one of several possible hypotheses. There's a HUGE difference between "hypothesis that needs more testing" and "wrong".

Here's a much better diagram. Of course the Concavenator thing is still controversial, but since the original authors are still actively studying and presenting evidence for their hypothesis and nobody has published a peer-reviewed refutation, the key is "controversial" not "wrong". This isn't like climate science or BAND where its a vocal minority vs. the scientific community. We're looking at a question that about 4 people have examined in depth and have only reported on preliminarily.

Psittacosaurus quills are not in any way related to the quills associated with early feathers, or the quills of Tianyulong. They are entirely distinct.

Where has this been demonstrated? I know the argument is that they "seem" to be coming from beneath the dermal tissue, but couldn't this just be an artifact of the way the specimen was flattened? That is, the quills are not on the dorsal midline, but are stemming from the skin along the sides of the tail? So when it was flattened it looks like their bases are "inside" the tail?

By the way, if they really ARE coming from inside the tail, they're not integument at all - they'd have to be internal fibers of some kind. By definition, integument comes from the skin. They'd be more like the spines of Amargasaurus, or more likely frayed ligaments. But the fact that the skin envelope seems to be intact implies that they must just be stemming from the sides of the tail.

The quills of Tianyulong and "fluff" of Kulindadromeus may share a common physical ancestor with theropods, or that ancestry may be entirely genetic.

I'm sorry, does this mean anything? What is the difference between "physical" ancestry and genetic ancestry? All shared traits are due to genetics. Genetic ancestry is the only kind of ancestry there is.

Example: Snakes still have the genes for legs. If a lineage of snakes re-evolved legs, that is still the same homologous structure as their ancestors had. There's no such thing as devolution, so traits can appear, disappear, and re-appear. If it's the same gene, it's the same structure. That's what homology is.

There aren't any filamentous feathers known from Megalosauroidea, I'm going to assume this a dated element rather than an extremely liberal assumption because Kulindadromeus is not included in the chart and it's probably the best evidence of a potential "feathered" ancestor within dinosauria.

This depends on the placement of Sciurumimus as a megalosaur. Again, one hypothesis among several that is in need of further testing. Just because the newest papers disagree with a hypothesis doesn't mean the science is settled. That's the ridiculous pop-sci news fallacy of "this week chocolate is good for you! Last week it was bad for you!"

Right now, the best analysis says Sciurumimus is a basal coelurosaur. But there's a lot of hints that what we think of as basal coelurosaurs /coelurids / compsognathids might really be an ontogenetic "grade" spread out among various theropod lineages. This idea has yet to actually be tested, so once again, we can't say it's "wrong".

Finally, someone agrees with me! Thanks for clearing up a few things.

[stargatedalek]

Psittacosaurus is not my thing, I trust the evidence Amargasaurus has amassed in the past on the subject and have found his interpretation to be reasonable. If structures embedded below the skin are not integument, than I'm proceeding as Psittacosaurus didn't have integument. Interesting comparison to the spines of Amargasaurus, I think that's a quite intriguing analogue.

We already know that feathers and pycnofibers share a common genetic ancestor, are we going to start calling those feathers too? A line has to be drawn somewhere in regards to the morphology itself as to what constitutes a feather, and since the initial documentation of Kulinadromeus structures doesn't refer to them as such, that's what I'm going with. This has nothing to do with blindly following the most recently published claim, lines have to be drawn somewhere, that's just a necessary aspect of how we understand and define life.

I actually had never heard that about Sciurumimus, so pardon my thinking the idea was taking leaps and bounds.

[HD-man]

Just because the newest papers disagree with a hypothesis doesn't mean the science is settled. That's the ridiculous pop-sci news fallacy of "this week chocolate is good for you! Last week it was bad for you!"

That reminds me of 2 things: 1) My "Top 4 most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses" (which was inspired by said fallacy: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=1712.0 ); 2) This very interesting video (which is about said fallacy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Psittacosaurus is not my thing, I trust the evidence Amargasaurus has amassed in the past on the subject and have found his interpretation to be reasonable. If structures embedded below the skin are not integument, than I'm proceeding as Psittacosaurus didn't have integument. Interesting comparison to the spines of Amargasaurus, I think that's a quite intriguing analogue......

I will offer this for all to consider...the following images were taken by about as fine a gentleman as you might meet in this forum....and in person standing in front of the specimen, except the final image which is a direct screenshot from the paper itself. You can view the evidence and decide for yourself....the authors of the paper clearly state the fibers are imbedded almost directly on top of the verts themselves however.
     I do also point to the obvious skin envelope both above and below the tail, above with the fibers and below clearly without .
     This is what Dalek and I both find rather annoying about the entire quills/modified scales/triceratops/raised centers on scales debate.....a serious examination of this fossil demonstrates clearly they are not and never were similar and do not give evidence for more derived animals to have this same.....integument/non-integument

This is the actual fossil at the museum as you see it.


And here is an even closer look.


Details of the preservation...notice the actual scales





Notice the visible patterns and obvious colors



The famous tail with its "integument""non-integument" closer still

The actual figures from the paper itself...."On the Integument of Psittacosaurus"

And the accompanying quote from the authors of the paper...."Fig. 3 a Ultraviolet-induced fluorescence photograph of the tail, showing numerous small scales. b Detail of the proximal area of the tail, showing that the "bristles" extend deeply into the skin (arrows) and terminate directly at the vertebrae; the neural spines of the vertebrae are indicated by asterisks. c, d Details of the "bristles", showing the narrow dark stripe along the midline which possibly indicates a tubular structure of these appendices (arrows). The scale bars equal 5 mm"
                 Again the first several images I credit with sincere respect and admiration to my friend Postsaur here in the forum. He was in extreme medical distress during his visit and still posted himself at the fossil and took numerous superb images for me. Friends are a great thing.

    If anyone needs the actual paper itself for further study message and I will send it along as well free of course.

[Dinoguy2]

Psittacosaurus is not my thing, I trust the evidence Amargasaurus has amassed in the past on the subject and have found his interpretation to be reasonable. If structures embedded below the skin are not integument, than I'm proceeding as Psittacosaurus didn't have integument. Interesting comparison to the spines of Amargasaurus, I think that's a quite intriguing analogue......

I will offer this for all to consider...the following images were taken by about as fine a gentleman as you might meet in this forum....and in person standing in front of the specimen, except the final image which is a direct screenshot from the paper itself. You can view the evidence and decide for yourself....the authors of the paper clearly state the fibers are imbedded almost directly on top of the verts themselves however.
     I do also point to the obvious skin envelope both above and below the tail, above with the fibers and below clearly without .
     This is what Dalek and I both find rather annoying about the entire quills/modified scales/triceratops/raised centers on scales debate.....a serious examination of this fossil demonstrates clearly they are not and never were similar and do not give evidence for more derived animals to have this same.....integument/non-integument

This is the actual fossil at the museum as you see it.


And here is an even closer look.


Details of the preservation...notice the actual scales





Notice the visible patterns and obvious colors



The famous tail with its "integument""non-integument" closer still

The actual figures from the paper itself...."On the Integument of Psittacosaurus"

And the accompanying quote from the authors of the paper...."Fig. 3 a Ultraviolet-induced fluorescence photograph of the tail, showing numerous small scales. b Detail of the proximal area of the tail, showing that the "bristles" extend deeply into the skin (arrows) and terminate directly at the vertebrae; the neural spines of the vertebrae are indicated by asterisks. c, d Details of the "bristles", showing the narrow dark stripe along the midline which possibly indicates a tubular structure of these appendices (arrows). The scale bars equal 5 mm"
                 Again the first several images I credit with sincere respect and admiration to my friend Postsaur here in the forum. He was in extreme medical distress during his visit and still posted himself at the fossil and took numerous superb images for me. Friends are a great thing.

    If anyone needs the actual paper itself for further study message and I will send it along as well free of course.

I think the paper does a poor job of considering the tephonomy of this specimen. The fibers appear to terminate at the vertebrae. But this was a round, 3D animal that is preserved on its back and crushed into a flat pancake. If the fibers originated in the skin on the dorsal tail, and the animal flipped on its back and was crushed, wouldn't the fibers APPEAR to disappear behind the vertebrae? In this position, if they WERE in the skin on the "top" of the tail as fossilized, theyd be protruding from the bottom side of the tail only, which would be incredibly odd. The arrangement in this fossil is EXACTLY what you'd expect to find if the fibers where emanating from the top of the tail as most other authors have assumed.

Remember, these "beautifully preserved" fossils are NOT snapshots of dinosaurs life appearance. They're snapshots of squashed flattened half rotted roadkill.

Note that the same quote states the internal structure is tubular which is consistent with feathers (but also porcupine quills).

And I'll reiterate- if you think they are anchored to the vertebrae, they are structural fibers and we have to admit they're either displaced tendons or this thing had a tail fin like Lingham Solier and Tracy Ford suggested.

Psittacosaurus is not my thing, I trust the evidence Amargasaurus has amassed in the past on the subject and have found his interpretation to be reasonable. If structures embedded below the skin are not integument, than I'm proceeding as Psittacosaurus didn't have integument. Interesting comparison to the spines of Amargasaurus, I think that's a quite intriguing analogue.

We already know that feathers and pycnofibers share a common genetic ancestor, are we going to start calling those feathers too? A line has to be drawn somewhere in regards to the morphology itself as to what constitutes a feather, and since the initial documentation of Kulinadromeus structures doesn't refer to them as such, that's what I'm going with. This has nothing to do with blindly following the most recently published claim, lines have to be drawn somewhere, that's just a necessary aspect of how we understand and define life.

I actually had never heard that about Sciurumimus, so pardon my thinking the idea was taking leaps and bounds.

Feather development experts have already published a very clear definition of what they feel a "feather" should be going forward, so we'll have to see if other professionals follow suit. A feather is a hollow-based integumentary structure derived from a follicle and composed primarily of B-keratin. This is actually the only definition that can encompass the enormous diversity of modern bird feathers and exclude things like hair. If pterosaur fuzz or psittacosaur bristles meet these criteria, they are feathers.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Psittacosaurus is not my thing, I trust the evidence Amargasaurus has amassed in the past on the subject and have found his interpretation to be reasonable. If structures embedded below the skin are not integument, than I'm proceeding as Psittacosaurus didn't have integument. Interesting comparison to the spines of Amargasaurus, I think that's a quite intriguing analogue......

I will offer this for all to consider...the following images were taken by about as fine a gentleman as you might meet in this forum....and in person standing in front of the specimen, except the final image which is a direct screenshot from the paper itself. You can view the evidence and decide for yourself....the authors of the paper clearly state the fibers are imbedded almost directly on top of the verts themselves however.
     I do also point to the obvious skin envelope both above and below the tail, above with the fibers and below clearly without .
     This is what Dalek and I both find rather annoying about the entire quills/modified scales/triceratops/raised centers on scales debate.....a serious examination of this fossil demonstrates clearly they are not and never were similar and do not give evidence for more derived animals to have this same.....integument/non-integument

This is the actual fossil at the museum as you see it.


And here is an even closer look.


Details of the preservation...notice the actual scales





Notice the visible patterns and obvious colors



The famous tail with its "integument""non-integument" closer still

The actual figures from the paper itself...."On the Integument of Psittacosaurus"

And the accompanying quote from the authors of the paper...."Fig. 3 a Ultraviolet-induced fluorescence photograph of the tail, showing numerous small scales. b Detail of the proximal area of the tail, showing that the "bristles" extend deeply into the skin (arrows) and terminate directly at the vertebrae; the neural spines of the vertebrae are indicated by asterisks. c, d Details of the "bristles", showing the narrow dark stripe along the midline which possibly indicates a tubular structure of these appendices (arrows). The scale bars equal 5 mm"
                 Again the first several images I credit with sincere respect and admiration to my friend Postsaur here in the forum. He was in extreme medical distress during his visit and still posted himself at the fossil and took numerous superb images for me. Friends are a great thing.

    If anyone needs the actual paper itself for further study message and I will send it along as well free of course.

I think the paper does a poor job of considering the tephonomy of this specimen. The fibers appear to terminate at the vertebrae. But this was a round, 3D animal that is preserved on its back and crushed into a flat pancake. If the fibers originated in the skin on the dorsal tail, and the animal flipped on its back and was crushed, wouldn't the fibers APPEAR to disappear behind the vertebrae? In this position, if they WERE in the skin on the "top" of the tail as fossilized, theyd be protruding from the bottom side of the tail only, which would be incredibly odd. The arrangement in this fossil is EXACTLY what you'd expect to find if the fibers where emanating from the top of the tail as most other authors have assumed.

Remember, these "beautifully preserved" fossils are NOT snapshots of dinosaurs life appearance. They're snapshots of squashed flattened half rotted roadkill.

Note that the same quote states the internal structure is tubular which is consistent with feathers (but also porcupine quills).

And I'll reiterate- if you think they are anchored to the vertebrae, they are structural fibers and we have to admit they're either displaced tendons or this thing had a tail fin like Lingham Solier and Tracy Ford suggested.

A few things worth noting , first the paper was written by people holding an actual fossil under a special light to help determine the precise nature of what they were doing. "a Ultraviolet-induced fluorescence "   Regardless how that may look to us at general lighting conditions I would suggest they might have had somewhat a better view than we do? Connsidering the massive amount of prep and work this establishment has given the specimen I would offer they have done rather well with it all.
Still if your guess were correct and the fibers should appear to disappear behind the verts, they do NOT. They in fact end almost directly next to the vert processes themselves rather than disappearing BEHIND. I think what you are saying here is confusing...are you suggesting the fibers were sticking up from the skin itself only on the top...or that they were only erupting from below the skin on top or are you suggesting they branched out from all angles above the skin ?I have seen no published author offer anything except agreement the fibers originate below the skin...wether from the top of the tail or extending from the sides of the tail or whatever configuration suggested. Everything I have seen to date published ie this specimen supports the internal nature of the fibers...would be interested in anything definitive that says otherwise .

[Dinoguy2]

Psittacosaurus is not my thing, I trust the evidence Amargasaurus has amassed in the past on the subject and have found his interpretation to be reasonable. If structures embedded below the skin are not integument, than I'm proceeding as Psittacosaurus didn't have integument. Interesting comparison to the spines of Amargasaurus, I think that's a quite intriguing analogue......

I will offer this for all to consider...the following images were taken by about as fine a gentleman as you might meet in this forum....and in person standing in front of the specimen, except the final image which is a direct screenshot from the paper itself. You can view the evidence and decide for yourself....the authors of the paper clearly state the fibers are imbedded almost directly on top of the verts themselves however.
     I do also point to the obvious skin envelope both above and below the tail, above with the fibers and below clearly without .
     This is what Dalek and I both find rather annoying about the entire quills/modified scales/triceratops/raised centers on scales debate.....a serious examination of this fossil demonstrates clearly they are not and never were similar and do not give evidence for more derived animals to have this same.....integument/non-integument

This is the actual fossil at the museum as you see it.


And here is an even closer look.


Details of the preservation...notice the actual scales





Notice the visible patterns and obvious colors



The famous tail with its "integument""non-integument" closer still

The actual figures from the paper itself...."On the Integument of Psittacosaurus"

And the accompanying quote from the authors of the paper...."Fig. 3 a Ultraviolet-induced fluorescence photograph of the tail, showing numerous small scales. b Detail of the proximal area of the tail, showing that the "bristles" extend deeply into the skin (arrows) and terminate directly at the vertebrae; the neural spines of the vertebrae are indicated by asterisks. c, d Details of the "bristles", showing the narrow dark stripe along the midline which possibly indicates a tubular structure of these appendices (arrows). The scale bars equal 5 mm"
                 Again the first several images I credit with sincere respect and admiration to my friend Postsaur here in the forum. He was in extreme medical distress during his visit and still posted himself at the fossil and took numerous superb images for me. Friends are a great thing.

    If anyone needs the actual paper itself for further study message and I will send it along as well free of course.

I think the paper does a poor job of considering the tephonomy of this specimen. The fibers appear to terminate at the vertebrae. But this was a round, 3D animal that is preserved on its back and crushed into a flat pancake. If the fibers originated in the skin on the dorsal tail, and the animal flipped on its back and was crushed, wouldn't the fibers APPEAR to disappear behind the vertebrae? In this position, if they WERE in the skin on the "top" of the tail as fossilized, theyd be protruding from the bottom side of the tail only, which would be incredibly odd. The arrangement in this fossil is EXACTLY what you'd expect to find if the fibers where emanating from the top of the tail as most other authors have assumed.

Remember, these "beautifully preserved" fossils are NOT snapshots of dinosaurs life appearance. They're snapshots of squashed flattened half rotted roadkill.

Note that the same quote states the internal structure is tubular which is consistent with feathers (but also porcupine quills).

And I'll reiterate- if you think they are anchored to the vertebrae, they are structural fibers and we have to admit they're either displaced tendons or this thing had a tail fin like Lingham Solier and Tracy Ford suggested.

A few things worth noting , first the paper was written by people holding an actual fossil under a special light to help determine the precise nature of what they were doing. "a Ultraviolet-induced fluorescence "   Regardless how that may look to us at general lighting conditions I would suggest they might have had somewhat a better view than we do? Connsidering the massive amount of prep and work this establishment has given the specimen I would offer they have done rather well with it all.
Still if your guess were correct and the fibers should appear to disappear behind the verts, they do NOT. They in fact end almost directly next to the vert processes themselves rather than disappearing BEHIND. I think what you are saying here is confusing...are you suggesting the fibers were sticking up from the skin itself only on the top...or that they were only erupting from below the skin on top or are you suggesting they branched out from all angles above the skin ?I have seen no published author offer anything except agreement the fibers originate below the skin...wether from the top of the tail or extending from the sides of the tail or whatever configuration suggested. Everything I have seen to date published ie this specimen supports the internal nature of the fibers...would be interested in anything definitive that says otherwise .

I'm suggesting that the fibers might be in the skin but on the "back" side of the fossil. The fossil is preserved in ventral aspect - it's laying on its back. If the fibers are dorsal they should appear "through" the skin outline after being compressed in two dimensions. Which is how they do appear. See that dark outline above the caudal verts? That is the skin of the side of the tail, not the top. The top of the tail is under the rock "behind" the fossil. I'm suggesting the quills *might* be coming from there, and therefore appear but only appear to be buried deep in the tail tissue when in fact the tail tissue is only lying on top of them.

Edit: I just checked the newest paper on this specimen (the one they made that model for) and they seem to support what I'm speculating here. From the supplementary materials:

Compression and distortion. It has been shown that compression fossils do not exhibit any lateral distortion or widening during the process of flattening [30] and thus that a fossil can be more or less interpreted as a 2D compression of a 3D view. This pertains also to SMF R 4970. However, decay prior to burial and compaction can lead to distortion of the body. The skeleton remains in perfect articulation, and there is no obvious distortion to the integument, which both suggest rapid burial and encapsulation. However, while the body appears in an oblique ventral view, the tail vertebrae seems to be displaced laterally, as is evident by the proximal displacement of the tail vertebrae, which appear to be in a lateral view. The integument appears to be in an oblique ventral view as the dorsal quill filaments on the tail extend below the exposed dorsal margin about 4 cm. The ventral midline is delineated by the preserved cloaca and ischial callosity.

This is exactly what I was trying to describe above. The quills being internal is an illusion caused by the oblique position of the skin envelope.

[stargatedalek]

If that were the case wouldn't we see the scales and pigments preserved on them the same we way we see them on the bones?