Ostrich dinosaurs ... with wings!

[dinohunter000]

http://skeletaldrawing.blogspot.ca/2012/10/ornithomimus-had-wingsas-adult.html#more

[Gwangi]

I just read about this myself. Bird mimics indeed! They must have looked very much like large ostriches. This is fantastic news, finally there is hard evidence for feathers for all of coelurosauria. The fact that we have three specimens and they're from North America really sweeten the deal. 

[Simon]

This is amazing news.  Obviously the most likely reason that the adults had these large wings is probably for sexual display.

But - pssst:  DON'T TELL "Ihatefeathers" about it!!   

[ihatefeathers144]

This is amazing news.  Obviously the most likely reason that the adults had these large wings is probably for sexual display.

But - pssst:  DON'T TELL "Ihatefeathers" about it!!   

HA!  I saw the picture on live science. If anyone has a link to a picture of said specimen with something that actually looks like a feather & not a brown smudge let me know gentlemen.

[Gryphoceratops]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22428-dinosaurs-may-have-evolved-feathers-for-courtship.html

That link has a picture of the specimen.

This is amazing news.  Obviously the most likely reason that the adults had these large wings is probably for sexual display.

But - pssst:  DON'T TELL "Ihatefeathers" about it!!   

HA!  I saw the picture on live science. If anyone has a link to a picture of said specimen with something that actually looks like a feather & not a brown smudge let me know gentlemen.

Here ya go.  From the Royal Tyrell Museum's website.

[ihatefeathers144]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22428-dinosaurs-may-have-evolved-feathers-for-courtship.html

That link has a picture of the specimen.  It probably looks less like a smudge and more like feather material if you were one of the scientists actually studying it up close.

Well that may be my friend, but I can only go with what my eyes are telling me.

[ihatefeathers144]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22428-dinosaurs-may-have-evolved-feathers-for-courtship.html

That link has a picture of the specimen.

This is amazing news.  Obviously the most likely reason that the adults had these large wings is probably for sexual display.

But - pssst:  DON'T TELL "Ihatefeathers" about it!!   

HA!  I saw the picture on live science. If anyone has a link to a picture of said specimen with something that actually looks like a feather & not a brown smudge let me know gentlemen.

Here ya go.  From the Royal Tyrell Museum's website.

Yeah that's the very same pic I saw. Guys I'm sorry, but I don't know what that is. Call me an idiot, a fool, whatever you want. It looks like a nebulous blob to me.

[Gwangi]

This may seem a bit off topic but bear with me. I recently went on a dig at Pennsylvania's Red Hill fossil site. It represents the Devonian age and well, there are a lot of fishes there. While I was chillin' on the side of the cliff looking for fossils the paleontologist who works the site made his rounds to check everyone's progress. I was amazed at all he could see in those rocks that I could not. A white smudge on a rock became a bone. Not just a bone but a particular bone from a particular kind of fish. He could do the same for a fish scale smaller than my pinky nail. He could identify a thin layer of rock as not only being a fish but could also tell you in what direction he was facing. I mean this fish was smashed between the layers or rock and only exposed along the rock face and this man pointed out where everything was located; the head, the tail...the whole damn thing. The tip of a tooth stuck out like a sore thumb to him. Granted he could have told us anything and we would have bought it but being a man of science I don't think that is what he was doing. These folks can tell one 400 million year old fish from another like we can tell a McDonald's from a Burger King. They can do it better than most people can identify a living brown trout from an Atlantic salmon. They're trained to do this, they live for this.
My point in all this is that these people know what they're doing (as they should). I'm not saying we shouldn't be skeptical of new discoveries but if they're calling that thing in the photo a feather that is probably what it is and honestly, I can see it to some degree myself. It is not as clear as anything from China but it wouldn't be would it? We also need to consider that they're working with three specimens who've they've looked over in great detail for some time. These specimens weren't just discovered yesterday. We now have feathered dinosaurs not only from China and Germany but now finally from North America as well. Birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs had feathers. These are about as close to a fact as you can get in science. Any denial at this point would be on par with Holocaust deniers and flat earthers. To deny the evidence is to ignore the progress of science.

[Takama]

I just read about this myself. Bird mimics indeed! They must have looked very much like large ostriches. This is fantastic news, finally there is hard evidence for feathers for all of coelurosauria. The fact that we have three specimens and they're from North America really sweeten the deal. 

I Now just look at a ostrich and go, "Struthiomimims" Only without the long tail

[ZoPteryx]

Fascinating find, and from North America too!   Of course more tests will need to be run to prove they are indeed feathers and not [insert something here, I'm not sure what else they could possibly be! ], and then ornithimimid fossils the world over are going to have to be reinspected.

[Gryphoceratops]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22428-dinosaurs-may-have-evolved-feathers-for-courtship.html

That link has a picture of the specimen.

This is amazing news.  Obviously the most likely reason that the adults had these large wings is probably for sexual display.

But - pssst:  DON'T TELL "Ihatefeathers" about it!!   

HA!  I saw the picture on live science. If anyone has a link to a picture of said specimen with something that actually looks like a feather & not a brown smudge let me know gentlemen.

Here ya go.  From the Royal Tyrell Museum's website.

Yeah that's the very same pic I saw. Guys I'm sorry, but I don't know what that is. Call me an idiot, a fool, whatever you want. It looks like a nebulous blob to me.

Are you sure you cant see the feathers?  Or is it that you don't want to see the feathers?  Also like Gwangi said the people actually identifying these things really know their subject matter.  Its amazing what some experience and a little formal education can do.

Here is a video. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe8_PI_s9-0

At this point if you are going to deny feathers on coelurosaurs you might as well deny fur/hair on every fossil mammal too.     

[ihatefeathers144]

Hey fellas, I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything. I never said the guys studying it don't know what they're doing. I'm just calling it the way I see it. I don't deny fossil mammal hair because it looks like, well, hair.

[stoneage]

I don't see any feathers either. In Gryp article it said:  "But the preservation of details in the coarse sandstone fossil is poor, says palaeontologist Thomas Holtz of the University of Maryland in College Park. He wants to see better-preserved specimens to be sure what type of feather structures were on the ornithomimids' arms."  In other words this fossil is so bad he can't even tell what kind of feather structure he is looking at.  If seeing is believing, I need to see something more convincing. 

[Gryphoceratops]

I don't see any feathers either. In Gryp article it said:  "But the preservation of details in the coarse sandstone fossil is poor, says palaeontologist Thomas Holtz of the University of Maryland in College Park. He wants to see better-preserved specimens to be sure what type of feather structures were on the ornithomimids' arms."  In other words this fossil is so bad he can't even tell what kind of feather structure he is looking at.  If seeing is believing, I need to see something more convincing.

Dr. Holtz is not denying presence of feathers.  He is just unsure as to whether or not they are veined feathers specifically.   

That wasn't my point about mammals.  Why do we reconstruct Smilodon with fur?  It isn't known from any fossil that has direct evidence of fur.  But we do know its closely related to modern cats which do have fur.  Coelurosaurs should be treated the same with birds. 

[Gwangi]

If what we're seeing is not a feather...what is it? I can see a feather there, it actually looks pretty obvious and I can see that on a small picture on my computer screen, I'm not even there looking at it. It has to be something so if not a feather than what? It does not look too dissimilar to other fossil feathers I've seen, only that it is not as well preserved but as I already said...it wouldn't be would it? I really don't see what the problem is in accepting this for what it is. Feathers are known throughout coelurosauria and most people figured it was a given in ornithomimids. The biggest surprise really is the location where they were found and the "wings." I'm sure someday a feathered ornithomimid will come out of China that can help validate this one but it really is not necessary. Honestly, why wouldn't these animals have feathers?

[tyrantqueen]

Does this mean that Ornithomimus could fly?

Doesn't look like feathers to me either, but then again I'm not a paleontologist, nor do I claim to be.

[Patrx]

Why do we reconstruct Smilodon with fur?  It isn't known from any fossil that has direct evidence of fur.  But we do know its closely related to modern cats which do have fur.  Coelurosaurs should be treated the same with birds.

Well said! I could not agree more.

[Libraraptor]

Stunning news, yet not really surprising.

[wings]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22428-dinosaurs-may-have-evolved-feathers-for-courtship.html

That link has a picture of the specimen.

This is amazing news.  Obviously the most likely reason that the adults had these large wings is probably for sexual display.

But - pssst:  DON'T TELL "Ihatefeathers" about it!!   

HA!  I saw the picture on live science. If anyone has a link to a picture of said specimen with something that actually looks like a feather & not a brown smudge let me know gentlemen.

Here ya go.  From the Royal Tyrell Museum's website.

Yeah that's the very same pic I saw. Guys I'm sorry, but I don't know what that is. Call me an idiot, a fool, whatever you want. It looks like a nebulous blob to me.

What you are looking at are the filamentous feathers along the back of the adult Ornithomimus (TMP 2008.70.1), the solid brown shape is the tip of the shoulder blade. You probably have to get the paper to understand the full picture. As for the indication of wings we are basing this on the markings of forelimb bones, some of these markings implied that there were shafted feathers (central shaft, with or without barbules) presented along these bones and the orientations of these markings are very similar to the covert feathers found in modern day birds' wings (as in this link http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/files/2012/10/Ornithomimus_skeleton.jpg). Again if possible look for the actual paper for a better description.

[Gryphoceratops]

Do you have access to the paper?  I couldn't find it for free.