|
Post by richard on Apr 23, 2008 22:44:29 GMT
I don't care if feathered dinosaurs look hideous. I just want the truth, based on science. That's all I ask for. And why feathered dinosaurs have been found only in China?
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Apr 24, 2008 17:20:18 GMT
... but there shouldn't be feathered representations of other non-Chinese dinosaurs until we actually find the freaking feathers. We just don't have proof. I suspect that this is post hoc rationalisation for a decision already made on aesthetic and emotional grounds. It really isn't, aesthetics and emotions have nothing to do with that, I'm not that childish If this argument (i.e. only objective physical fossil evidence please) is true and honest, it must be applied consistently. For example, there is no such evidence for a dorsal fin in Shonisaurus. I hear no stubborn knee-jerk reaction in this case, on the contrary, this is one of your favorites is it not Tomhet? So, why draw lines in the sand at different distances for different clades? Either there is objective proof or there is not. The fact that the argument is indeed being applied inconsistently, seems to indicates that you are trying to justify decisions you have already made. Is it really necessary to apply my argument to all the cases? Because I don't think that's the same case here. It is only logical to fill the gap of the dorsal fin; well, maybe I'm just being ignorant and need to read more, but I don't see any reasons why other dinosaurs should have feathers, even other deinonychosauria.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 24, 2008 19:31:33 GMT
"It really isn't, aesthetics and emotions have nothing to do with that, I'm not that childish " fair enough - glad to hear it "Is it really necessary to apply my argument to all the cases? Because I don't think that's the same case here. It is only logical to fill the gap of the dorsal fin; well, maybe I'm just being ignorant and need to read more, but I don't see any reasons why other dinosaurs should have feathers, even other deinonychosauria. Not ignorant, just inconsistent. Sure, you can invoke additional arguments or logic for or against a particular structure being present or not, but thats beside the point I'm making; it moots the sentiment of the original argument
|
|
|
Post by richard on Apr 24, 2008 22:17:01 GMT
I wonder the same thing, why all dinosaurs must have feathers? I really don't care if some dinosaurs had feathers, dinosaurs for example, were prehistoric animals who ruled earth and were , but that doesnt mean that pterosaurus were dinosaurs. I know it's not the same, but just to have an example.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 24, 2008 23:05:18 GMT
I wonder the same thing, why all dinosaurs must have feathers? A valid thing to wonder. I certainly don't endorse putting feathers on every single dinosaur, nobody here is suggesting that. Luis Rey is extreme when it comes to this, but in many ways these are 'conceptual' and should not be taken too seriously. Palaeoart should not be confused with palaeontology, although the two are obviously linked. For me, this thread is about whether ANY dinosaur had feathers, which I think most of us accept seems to be likely. Thus our main area of disagreement is now how far do feathers extend into the dinosaur family tree - an actively researched area.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on May 2, 2008 21:57:33 GMT
I wanted to hop back on and comment that all Palaeoart is conceptual, unless you are drawing actual preserved specimens.
I know I for one am not going to purge my collection of dromeosaurs with scaled skin simply because that is not what they looked like, no more then I am going to get rid of my tippy T rexes who would have had to have broken backs to stand the way they do.
I am going to use this time to say, how many of you folks actually like, or really spend time looking AT birds ?
As for dinosaurs with flaps and wattles, you nay sayers diserve a kick in the rostrum. Seriously ? Both aves AND most modern reptiles (look at the iguanids and agamids, and thier various rediculous adornments) have flaps of skin for this and that for display. I would be completely SHOCKED if thier ancestors did not. Do I think they would look just like lou-reys chicken-o-raptor ? No, probably not. I mean, look at modern phesants, including chickens. How many have similar wattles ? No, stealing the Junglefowls wattles and slapping it on someone else isn't really very fair!
PLUS, as a predator, that stuff would be a great place for bacteria to collect/rot, and kill the animal. IMHO He really needs to think these things out realistically, as to purpose and function....
As for - "a few holes in the fossil arms indicating guard feathers should not result in a weird vulture-lizard hybrid"
Those holes do not indicate "guard feathers", they indicate the attatchment of flight feather style feathers, or something similar and mobil. I am not saying that raptors flew, but that the mechanics for flight were present in raptors. And as for "lizard hybrid", I am constantly amazed how many people still think ot comment how they link modern lizards in any way closely related to dinosaurs. (I am not saying you do, but that the "terrable lizard" thing has been so ingraned it is just hard to shift people away from it)
I am an Ornithology dweeb. I live, watch, study, work with and care for birds. I am fascinated by them. I feel the same way about many other animals too, including reptiles and non avian dinosaurs. I encorage all the people who do not "like" bird like dinosaurs to spend some time looking at and researching modern birds.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 2, 2008 22:19:35 GMT
I wanted to hop back on and comment that all Palaeoart is conceptual, unless you are drawing actual preserved specimens. I know I for one am not going to purge my collection of dromeosaurs with scaled skin simply because that is not what they looked like, no more then I am going to get rid of my tippy T rexes who would have had to have broken backs to stand the way they do. I am going to use this time to say, how many of you folks actually like, or really spend time looking AT birds ? As for dinosaurs with flaps and wattles, you nay sayers diserve a kick in the rostrum. Seriously ? Both aves AND most modern reptiles (look at the iguanids and agamids, and thier various rediculous adornments) have flaps of skin for this and that for display. I would be completely SHOCKED if thier ancestors did not. Do I think they would look just like lou-reys chicken-o-raptor ? No, probably not. I mean, look at modern phesants, including chickens. How many have similar wattles ? No, stealing the Junglefowls wattles and slapping it on someone else isn't really very fair! PLUS, as a predator, that stuff would be a great place for bacteria to collect/rot, and kill the animal. IMHO He really needs to think these things out realistically, as to purpose and function.... As for - "a few holes in the fossil arms indicating guard feathers should not result in a weird vulture-lizard hybrid" Those holes do not indicate "guard feathers", they indicate the attatchment of flight feather style feathers, or something similar and mobil. I am not saying that raptors flew, but that the mechanics for flight were present in raptors. And as for "lizard hybrid", I am constantly amazed how many people still think ot comment how they link modern lizards in any way closely related to dinosaurs. (I am not saying you do, but that the "terrable lizard" thing has been so ingraned it is just hard to shift people away from it) I am an Ornithology dweeb. I live, watch, study, work with and care for birds. I am fascinated by them. I feel the same way about many other animals too, including reptiles and non avian dinosaurs. I encorage all the people who do not "like" bird like dinosaurs to spend some time looking at and researching modern birds. If I dare venture the opinion, I am guessing that most people that are against feathered dinosaurs, and particularly those who are against a close relationship between birds & dinos, have not looked at either birds or the fossils (even a high quality scan of a photo of the fossils)all that closely. That said, I think everyone here is in agreement that Luis Rey goes WAY too far with many of his 'conceptualizations'. Maybe it can be taken as impetus for research--get other paleoartists to prove him wrong by doing the research properly, and getting out more realistic depictions of feathered dinos. And better depictions of how theropods are related to birds for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 2, 2008 23:00:06 GMT
wanted to hop back on and comment that all Palaeoart is conceptual, unless you are drawing actual preserved specimens.Agreed. I guess I meant conceptual in an 'arty' sense - pushing the boundaries of what is accepted or standard so to speak. t he "terrable lizard" thing has been so ingraned it is just hard to shift people away from itI think this is a major issue that has only been glossed over here. Step back, purge the scaley versions from your consciousness, looks at and think of derived theropods afresh AS birds, rather than as reptiles with feathers stuck on. These animals make so much sense, I would go so far as to say they just look 'right' (whatever that means!). So they have teeth and claws and they are on the wrong side of the arbitrary dinosaur/bird dichotomy, but when you look at life as the evolutionary continuum it really is, would we expect anything other than an animal like this?: web.archive.org/web/20040306031422/www.indyrad.iupui.edu/public/jrafert/Filipovic/newfeather/DAVE-SINORNITHOSAURUS2.jpgEDIT - pic won't embed so here is the link /\ or this: Look at these pics and think 'bird' not 'dinosaur'. are they really that ridiculous? or unlikely? Once you accept the fact that dinosaurs had feathers, then you can play with conceptual experiments and 'what ifs' as Lous Rey does (just don't take them too seriously).
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 2, 2008 23:36:45 GMT
The caudipteryx is not a 'feathered dinosaur', it's a bird. Yup, here we go again ;D My point is that its a dinosaur and a bird. Not taxonomically speaking, but phylogenetic speaking.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 2, 2008 23:42:27 GMT
Well, in the evolutionary sense that dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor, birds are dinosaurs (that is, if we refer to the putative common ancestor as a 'dinosaur', in which it now becomes a matter of how to define the term 'bird'). That however doesn't help clarify the 'fuzzy dinosaur from Liaoning' issue much though.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 2, 2008 23:51:42 GMT
Well, in the evolutionary sense that dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor No, I mean in the sense that they have bird characteristics and dinosaur characteristics. Sure they share a common ancestor, but EVERYTHING does, so it's not a helpful point. Humans share a common ancestor with birds - is that organism a primate or a bird? Purge systematics from your mind when thinking about evolution, it's just not important regarding how these things looked. But the word 'dinosaur' and 'bird' do have mental images associated with them. purge them! purge them!
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on May 3, 2008 0:06:44 GMT
"Step back, purge the scaley versions from your consciousness, looks at and think of derived theropods afresh AS birds, rather than as reptiles with feathers stuck on. These animals make so much sense, I would go so far as to say they just look 'right' (whatever that means!)."
*round of applause* Yes. People, GO ALL THE WAY BACK to when they found those Anomoepus scambus tracks up in New England and dubbed them "Noahs Ravens" in 1802....It was later, in 1841 that Richard Owen coined "Dinosaur", based off the teeth of an Iguanadon.
From that time on...they were "lizards", and even though various scientists spoke of the connection between aves and dinosaurs, it was not untill Archeopteryx that people really took note...and, wait, so many people claimed that a fake.
"Well, in the evolutionary sense that dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor, birds are dinosaurs (that is, if we refer to the putative common ancestor as a 'dinosaur', in which it now becomes a matter of how to define the term 'bird')."
Indeed. The main questions are HOW far back is the feathered ancestor, and that will help us get a greater understanding about how many dinosaur species are likely to be feathered.
Currently, that is all a mess. Birds are currently defined as modern avian manoraptorian theropods, and are thus just another group of dinosaurs.
For nearly EVERY scientist working on or with those fossils from Liaoning, the 'fuzzy dinosaur from Liaoning' issue is quite simple. It was a site where the animals that died were preserved in exceptional quality. The only people who are "in the know" who are really "doubting" the autheticity of these fossils anymore is one crackpot onnithologist who doesn't want to see birds "reduced" to dinosaur relatives (Fedducia) and creationists.
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 5, 2008 20:37:04 GMT
"Look at these pics and think 'bird' not 'dinosaur'. are they really that ridiculous? or unlikely? Once you accept the fact that dinosaurs had feathers, then you can play with conceptual experiments and 'what ifs' as Lous Rey does (just don't take them too seriously). " I've got to say again that appareance is not what matters. Why did dinosaurs have feathers? Scales are more useful, they can protect preys from their predators,or in a fight between two therapods. Why were feathers useful to dinosaurs? They became birds? If they envolved into birds, why have feathered dinosaurs been found only in China? Let's suppose that dromaeosaurids had feathers, there should be feathers in all dromaeosaurids, and no fossils of Deinonychus with feathers have been found in North America, only in China of animals like Microraptor, and it's logic that if Dromaeosaurids of China had feathers, then the ones from America too, like the characteristic claw... it doesn't make sense because there are only feathered dinosaurs fossils in CHina, or were they sorta endemic?
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 5, 2008 22:02:53 GMT
"Look at these pics and think 'bird' not 'dinosaur'. are they really that ridiculous? or unlikely? Once you accept the fact that dinosaurs had feathers, then you can play with conceptual experiments and 'what ifs' as Lous Rey does (just don't take them too seriously). " I've got to say again that appareance is not what matters. Why did dinosaurs have feathers? Scales are more useful, they can protect preys from their predators,or in a fight between two therapods. Why were feathers useful to dinosaurs? They became birds? If they envolved into birds, why have feathered dinosaurs been found only in China? Let's suppose that dromaeosaurids had feathers, there should be feathers in all dromaeosaurids, and no fossils of Deinonychus with feathers have been found in North America, only in China of animals like Microraptor, and it's logic that if Dromaeosaurids of China had feathers, then the ones from America too, like the characteristic claw... it doesn't make sense because there are only feathered dinosaurs fossils in China, or were they sorta endemic? The answer is simple - feathers, unlike bone, require extremely rare exceptional conditions to be preserved. We are lucky to have even the Chinese deposits. Why are feathers useful to living flightless birds?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 5, 2008 22:48:53 GMT
"Look at these pics and think 'bird' not 'dinosaur'. are they really that ridiculous? or unlikely? Once you accept the fact that dinosaurs had feathers, then you can play with conceptual experiments and 'what ifs' as Lous Rey does (just don't take them too seriously). " I've got to say again that appareance is not what matters. Why did dinosaurs have feathers? Scales are more useful, they can protect preys from their predators,or in a fight between two therapods. Why were feathers useful to dinosaurs? They became birds? If they envolved into birds, why have feathered dinosaurs been found only in China? Let's suppose that dromaeosaurids had feathers, there should be feathers in all dromaeosaurids, and no fossils of Deinonychus with feathers have been found in North America, only in China of animals like Microraptor, and it's logic that if Dromaeosaurids of China had feathers, then the ones from America too, like the characteristic claw... it doesn't make sense because there are only feathered dinosaurs fossils in CHina, or were they sorta endemic? Some people might wonder why birds have feathers on their backs--no need for such energy-using growth, when a scale could provide protection too. Further, a feather can be pretty handy defensively--they can buffer strikes against the body, as opposed to direct hits on the skin (quick experiment, Which hurts more--hitting a wall through a thin leather glove, or through a thin feather pillow? DON'T ACTUALLY TRY THIS). And why is everyone having such a hard time remembering Archaeopteryx? It has feathers too. Or how about this argument--we've never actually found fossils of Ichthyornis or Hesperornis (that I can recall). Did they have feathers? We know they are birds. And there is such a thing as secondary loss of characteristics--look at the head of eagles and vultures (close relatives). Vultures tend to be bald for various reasons, but their ancestors were not; therefore, some dinos could have moved into areas where feathers were no longer selected for; or it was evolved into a paedomorphic state. Lots of alternatives abound for why you may not see physical features. But most likely, it really is mostly an artefact of the poor preservation potential of feathers (just like skin, muscle, fin filaments, etc).
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on May 5, 2008 23:58:16 GMT
"Why did dinosaurs have feathers? Scales are more useful, they can protect preys from their predators,or in a fight between two therapods." "Why were feathers useful to dinosaurs?" "Some people might wonder why birds have feathers on their backs--no need for such energy-using growth, when a scale could provide protection too." Feathers are amazing structures, and would have been very usefull to the dinosaurs that donned them. This is one of those times that knowing how modern birds use feathers would help you understand how dinosaurs did. Feathers are lighter then bony osteoderms, similar to what covers much of a crocodile. Feathers require signifigantly LESS of a biologic output to produce then a big bone frill, or skin covered dulap, and can do the same thing. Feathers provide a quick way to display, and use color to intimidate rivals while wooing mates, and then can be layed flat, and will not attract unwanted attention. Feathers do everything from make you look bigger then you really are, to helping you look like a lump of dirt or a dusty log, (look at the tawny frogmouth and woodcock if you need to see examples) Feather can be moulted under stress or attack, much like a lizard can drop its tail. Modern Doves and Pigeons, along with Parrots and Turacos all do this. Feathers can harbor poison to make you taste nasty, and make your predators sick, like those on the aptly named Pitohui birds of New Guinea. Feathers are great insulation, both from the cold and from the heat (I hear that absurd "well, dinos didn't need feathers cause' they live in the desert and its hot there" thing all the time... Then why do desert dwelling birds have feathers, and nearly ALL desert dwelling reptiles dwell underground in burrows ? Indeed, during the peak of the day, the desert is a hot place, but it is one that gets cold as HECK at night. Feathers can help you counter a freezing night as well as stave off the baking sun, that can and will damaged scaled skin. ....oh, and, please, lets not forget...birds have scales too, that is what coveres thier legs. "If they envolved into birds, why have feathered dinosaurs been found only in China?" As others have said, its simple - the Chinese deposits preserved the animals in amazing detail, and this allows us to see things on them, like integuments, that other fossils sites did, and have not. This is the VERY same reason Archeopteryx was found only in the Solnhofen limestone deposits, in various states of decay and feather, some more complete then others, AND for the same reason we only find scale imprints on hadrosaurus at some locations, and fish fossils with gut content preservation in som localites. We know hadrosaurs were lumpy and bumpy, (and remember, when I say that I mean like a croc, or tortoise NOT fine overlapping scalation like on modern snakes and lizards) but fossils with these impressions are RARE. Just like feathers. "Or how about this argument--we've never actually found fossils of Ichthyornis or Hesperornis (that I can recall). Did they have feathers? We know they are birds." Indeed! We have not found either of those with feathers. Had Archeopteryx been found without feathers, as the Specimen from Eichstätt, Germany was, it would have either been dubbed "just another compy" or a variant of. Thankfully for us, on various other Archepteyx fossils, the details of its integument were preserved enough to give us a glimpse of a long tailed, toothed, dinosaurian predator....with fluff. "And there is such a thing as secondary loss of characteristics--look at the head of eagles and vultures (close relatives). Vultures tend to be bald for various reasons, but their ancestors were not; therefore, some dinos could have moved into areas where feathers were no longer selected for; or it was evolved into a paedomorphic state." As ong as you mean old world vultures and eagles :-) New world vultures are actually stork relatives. To add to the list of birds who have patchy feathering, look at the ostrich, as those are bald all the way up the thigh and sparsely covered with bristle like feathers nearly all the way down the neck. dustdevil.deviantart.com/art/Velociraptor-portrait-2-67697051Have a Velociraptor.
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 6, 2008 21:40:28 GMT
"Or how about this argument--we've never actually found fossils of Ichthyornis or Hesperornis (that I can recall). Did they have feathers? We know they are birds." Exactly!! They are birds! and dinosaurs are not birds, if you say, why do rats have fur? you know because they are mammals. "Why are feathers useful to living flightless birds? " Why do ostriches (for example) have feathers? Because they are birds, and a characteristical feature of birds are feathers, like hair on mammals. And dinosaurs are not birds! They are closely related, but dinosaurs are not birds. "the Chinese deposits preserved the animals in amazing detail" Once again, why ONLY in China?
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 6, 2008 22:22:36 GMT
"Or how about this argument--we've never actually found fossils of Ichthyornis or Hesperornis (that I can recall). Did they have feathers? We know they are birds." Exactly!! They are birds! and dinosaurs are not birds, if you say, why do rats have fur? you know because they are mammals. "Why are feathers useful to living flightless birds? " Why do ostriches (for example) have feathers? Because they are birds, and a characteristical feature of birds are feathers, like hair on mammals. And dinosaurs are not birds! They are closely related, but dinosaurs are not birds. So you would rather determine what an animal looks like based on it's arbitrary and subjective name, rather than what the evidence points too? Thats up to you, but you are wrong to do that. Classifications change, taxon diagnoses and definitions change. Classifications are doomed to fail because everything merges into everything else in an evolutionary sense -drawing lines between groups is only possible now because so many intermediates are extinct. "the Chinese deposits preserved the animals in amazing detail" Once again, why ONLY in China? Seriously? Because they are rare - rare things are found in ONLY few places, exceedingly rare things are found in ONLY one place. Why ONLY China? because that where the rare things are. 'but WHY ONLY China?' you insist. I'll throw an analogy back at you to examplify how utterly ridiculous the question is: Ichthyosaurs showing clear outlines of the fins are only found in one country - Germany - and that's a hell of a lot smaller than China by the way. Now I'll ask you: why ONLY germany? Seriously, I want an answer ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 6, 2008 22:32:12 GMT
"Or how about this argument--we've never actually found fossils of Ichthyornis or Hesperornis (that I can recall). Did they have feathers? We know they are birds." Exactly!! They are birds! and dinosaurs are not birds, if you say, why do rats have fur? you know because they are mammals. "Why are feathers useful to living flightless birds? " Why do ostriches (for example) have feathers? Because they are birds, and a characteristical feature of birds are feathers, like hair on mammals. And dinosaurs are not birds! They are closely related, but dinosaurs are not birds. "the Chinese deposits preserved the animals in amazing detail" Once again, why ONLY in China? I never said dinosaurs are birds--however, birds nest quite comfortably within the theropod group of dinosaurs, ergo, birds are dinosaurs. Hair is not absolutely necessary for mammals--think dolphins (okay, that's spurious--they lost fur secondarily). However, feathers have been found on dinosaurs--again, why can't a single anti-feather person remember that not only does Archaeopteryx have fossilized feathers, not only does Archaeopteryx NOT come from China, but that there are Archaeopteryx fossils that do not have feathers; and those were only recently differentiated from...dinosaur fossils, to which they are very physically similar (Compsognathus, to be exact). So here is the argument I repeatedly hear--dinosaurs aren't birds (technically true but only because of a logical reversal) so there can't be feather fossils on some dinosaurs (not true). Extremely rare fossils are only found in one location (not true) so the finely worked out cladistic and phylogenetic work by a large number of researchers must be wrong. Finally, some researchers have made errors (true) that were eventually identified and corrected by other scientists (true) therefore the entire well-supported theory is thrown out (sigh). Sounds reasonable. On opposite day in backwards land. I don't know why I keep at this. Except that I can't just let it slide. The fact is, there is a huge amount of evidence. And despite the desperate flailing by a few researchers and artists, nothing has come out that can even remotely begin to seriously cast doubt on a dinosaur bird link (this is fairly well established even without feather fossils). The only true debate is what the feathers did (brooding? insulation? display? flying/gliding? defensive integument?) and how they looked. Birds are a type of dinosaur--a very advanced, highly derived dinosaur.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on May 7, 2008 0:00:34 GMT
"I don't know why I keep at this. Except that I can't just let it slide. The fact is, there is a huge amount of evidence. And despite the desperate flailing by a few researchers and artists, nothing has come out that can even remotely begin to seriously cast doubt on a dinosaur bird link (this is fairly well established even without feather fossils). The only true debate is what the feathers did (brooding? insulation? display? flying/gliding? defensive integument?) and how they looked." I don't know why I do either, but I do. It kind of drives me crazy that people who love dinosaurs have to be one side of the fence or the other. I understand and fully recognize the dinosaur bird link, and understand the science, but that has never made me want to stop collecting scaly looking velociraptors with fat heads and funny wiggly looking tails. I guess my personal reason for enjoying dinosaur figures is that they are how dinosaurs have been depicted by people, and artists and that they are and have become the almost mythical, and powerfull "public image" of dinosaurs, and that is evolving. I guess how I feel towards toy dinosaur figures in general is the same reason I enjoy collecting dragon figures of various stripes. I would deffently expect models for museum, and educational purposes to be as accurate as possible. I think for the most part, if they are aimed to be that way, they are. "Birds are a type of dinosaur--a very advanced, highly derived dinosaur." Indeed. And, that in part it depends what type of bird you are calling "very advanced". Paleognaths are still quite primative in many respects, with the tinamous being a good model of what many other prehistoric species may looked like. Though, much like modern crocdilians are derived from thier ancestors, so are the tinamous, and that has to be taken into account. I would go as far as to say ALL maniraptoran theropods were all highly advanced, highly derived types of dinosaur, including modern aves.
|
|