|
Post by stoneage on Dec 7, 2009 0:17:12 GMT
;D There are those that feel the the hair imprints attributed to Pterosaurs are actually collagen fibers. ( A structural fiber found in muscle fibers in the wing membranes) In some cases this is true, but it can't be said for the likes of Sordes. Sordes is suppose to have had extremely thin unmistakable fiberous scales, which resemble hair. Show me these unmistakable images of the fossil?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Dec 7, 2009 0:24:25 GMT
The primitive feathers found on dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx would probably have resembled hair in life. However they weren't actually hair, as that's found only on mammals. Pterosaur 'hair' was similar to mammalian hair, in appearance and function but not exactly the same. It's an example of convergent evolution. And therapsids are mammals...well, mammals and their ancestors... ;D There are those that feel the the hair imprints attributed to Pterosaurs are actually collagen fibers. ( A structural fiber found in muscle fibers in the wing membranes) Yeah, but those people have yet to be very convincing ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 7, 2009 1:14:02 GMT
;D There are those that feel the the hair imprints attributed to Pterosaurs are actually collagen fibers. ( A structural fiber found in muscle fibers in the wing membranes) Yeah, but those people have yet to be very convincing ;D ;D Yeah but I bet these people know the difference between a possum skull and a raccoon skull! ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 7, 2009 2:01:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Dec 7, 2009 2:30:00 GMT
Yeah, but those people have yet to be very convincing ;D ;D Yeah but I bet these people know the difference between a possum skull and a raccoon skull! ;D Yeah, I screwed that up. On the other hand, does my mistake actually add support to the collagen zealots that will not rest until reptiles are seen only as scaly again. Turns out, no. An ad hominem argument (in this case, pointing out my error as though that somehow negates other facts) actually doesn't offer support or rebuttal of any kind. The fact remains that those very vocal but poorly supported (by their own research) scientists have failed to derail the hypotheses regarding integuments of pterosaurs (doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they have more work to do).
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 7, 2009 3:45:46 GMT
;D Yeah but I bet these people know the difference between a possum skull and a raccoon skull! ;D Yeah, I screwed that up. On the other hand, does my mistake actually add support to the collagen zealots that will not rest until reptiles are seen only as scaly again. Turns out, no. An ad hominem argument (in this case, pointing out my error as though that somehow negates other facts) actually doesn't offer support or rebuttal of any kind. The fact remains that those very vocal but poorly supported (by their own research) scientists have failed to derail the hypotheses regarding integuments of pterosaurs (doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they have more work to do). What this proves is you can be and have been mistaken before. Remember there was a time when most people thought the world was flat. Even after Aristotle and Erasthostenes proved it was round!
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Dec 7, 2009 4:54:36 GMT
Yeah, I screwed that up. On the other hand, does my mistake actually add support to the collagen zealots that will not rest until reptiles are seen only as scaly again. Turns out, no. An ad hominem argument (in this case, pointing out my error as though that somehow negates other facts) actually doesn't offer support or rebuttal of any kind. The fact remains that those very vocal but poorly supported (by their own research) scientists have failed to derail the hypotheses regarding integuments of pterosaurs (doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they have more work to do). What this proves is you can be and have been mistaken before. Remember there was a time when most people thought the world was flat. Even after Aristotle and Erasthostenes proved it was round! What does it matter that I am wrong? I don't study them. And if you are going to use the "here's what we thought" rule--'we' used to think all prehistoric reptiles were just scaly. Then evidence cropped up that 'we' were mistaken. And now, just as the Church and other doctrines rallied against (or ignored) Aristotle and Erasthostenes (and Copernicus, and Koepler, and Newton, and Galileo...) a small, but vocal, minority is trying very hard to make that evidence 'go away'--and for what? So don't say that I am trying to maintain some sort of status quo--for one, you greatly overestimate my influence, and for two, I have nothing to do with the actual studies, just as you don't. But I have read some of it (it's not my field, or my occupation, and who has time for that much heavy reading?) and the evidence can be contradictory. And since you wish to try and make this personal--what's your scientific background? Is this a field that you have worked in? As for the article--apparently debate continues (I love the crack about 'British palaeontologists' like it matters where they come from).
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Dec 7, 2009 11:45:37 GMT
I seem to remember that there is a sequence of Pterosaur footprints clearly showing awkward quadrapedal ground locomotion after what's been interpreted as a landing ............. or am I dreaming it? Ah, here's the link ................. Dr Padian is quoted as well ............. perhaps he's forgotten this evidence ;D news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2009/08/090819-pterosaur-runway-tracks-dinosaurs.html For the record, I prefer my Pterosaurs hairless and not hirsute
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Dec 7, 2009 20:25:57 GMT
Have there ever been evidence of pterosaur "hair" in any larger species? As far as I know it has just been in smaller ones like rhampharyncoids and such. Perhaps only the smaller ones had it since they may have had a tougher time maintaining body temp?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 15, 2009 9:10:00 GMT
Ehy ehy ehy, guys, here i am again! I am writing this with a crappy and smelly pc here in the university 'cause at my home the phone company has cut down our line along with internet, so... Anyway, back in topic, i must say that i believe that some dinosaurs lived in certain places where snow fell, and probably the little guys there were covered in fur or protofeathers for insulation; maybe the big herbivores were bulkier than their southern counterparts (imagine a "fat" hadrosaur!) and the hunters such as Tyrannosaurids or other big carnivores had white skin (or fur, like the arctic fox or the white bear ) to camouflage themselves in the snowy plains
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Dec 20, 2009 5:26:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Dec 20, 2009 5:53:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Dec 20, 2009 8:02:59 GMT
(There should be footprints in that dio ) Nah, he just felt from heaven. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Dec 20, 2009 9:28:18 GMT
You know, a neat custom project would be get some short faux fur..maybe grey..and glue it to areas of that Rex. If I had one I would certainly be tempted to try it.
|
|
|
Post by Libraraptor on Dec 20, 2009 12:14:52 GMT
This thread is exactly the one I needed at this time! I asked myself this question because at the moment it´s snowing around my house and I wanted to go out to take some diorama pics. Now unfourtunately my camera strikes for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Dec 20, 2009 22:28:59 GMT
Ehy ehy ehy, guys, here i am again! I am writing this with a crappy and smelly pc here in the university 'cause at my home the phone company has cut down our line along with internet, so... Anyway, back in topic, i must say that i believe that some dinosaurs lived in certain places where snow fell, and probably the little guys there were covered in fur or protofeathers for insulation; maybe the big herbivores were bulkier than their southern counterparts (imagine a "fat" hadrosaur!) and the hunters such as Tyrannosaurids or other big carnivores had white skin (or fur, like the arctic fox or the white bear ) to camouflage themselves in the snowy plains How about this: parasaurolophus' crest had a fat storage compartment underneath where the skin flap used to go because it is thought that they migrated to Alaska every year.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 20, 2009 22:59:12 GMT
It's thought that there isn't a skin flap, and a large fat reserve there would hinder the movements of the head. Fat stored on other places on the body like the tail or back or stomach would make more sense
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Dec 20, 2009 23:39:21 GMT
Why are scientists so certain there wasn't a skin flap connecting the crest to the neck? I'm not sure about the fat storage...I suppose its not impossible there are certainly stranger things in nature. But I always thought it was kinda cool having a colorful flap of membrane there that could be pumped with blood to change color or act as a cooling device.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 21, 2009 0:24:24 GMT
I don't know, It's just the generally accepted thing I guess...
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Dec 21, 2009 0:28:41 GMT
Really? Aren't there plenty of reconstructions showcasing a crest flap? Heck doesn't everyone's beloved Battat Para have one? When I was drawing my illustrations for my study, my professor even recommended I include it. I have no clue if it had one in life but it seem kinda stupid to generally accept that it no doubt did not without any evidence.
|
|