|
Post by sid on Jan 27, 2009 22:39:59 GMT
It makes sense if you consider these two theories: 1) exquisite preserved feathered dinosaurs come from China...A country where forgeries flourish like flowers in spring,and the art of falsification has reached new peaks of perfection...This,plus the fact China wants to shine in almost every field (scientific,economic,etc),it's enough to raise some eyebrows about the authenticity of these finds ;D 2) feathers in dinosaurs were just an asian phenomenon 8at least in the beginning)...Maybe because down there was much colder than in the rest of the world,so dinosaurs evolved feathers and fuzz for insulation You can choose between those two,Teton...But who knows what future will bring about this subject
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 27, 2009 22:58:19 GMT
Teton's right, archeopteryx was discovered WITH feathers, but not in China, in Germany.
China just got lucky - there are a few places with fine-grained lake mud that preserved these guys, so there are sites with feather impressions.
There are plenty of sites in China where feathers aren't found because of preservation issues, just like most US fossil deposits.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 27, 2009 23:12:04 GMT
^^ But dinosaur planet was full of other problems. Most notably the grass the iguanadon were chewing on. I had this argument with a friend a few years ago, about there being no grass around back then. We googled the history of grass, and found several articles stating that new evidence supports the appearance of grass during the dino's reign. Has anyone else heard that? I know I am going to regret asking this, and will probably get several pokes, but: Regarding feathered dinos....Outside of China, are there any fossilized dino feathers? I know archeopteryx and other prehistoric birds have them, but I have been wondering. I know, its never good when I do that... So, the first archeopteryx did not have evidence of feathers, right? or at least some did and some did not. So, fossilization seems to be pretty rare and hit or miss. But all the small dinos coming out of China have very well preserved covering almost every time....? Now, I had heard on a Nat Geo special that this was because the conditions in this area were especially perfect for preserving the feathers yadda yadda. Ok. but archeopteryx was not in China, right? and we still have those feathers. And, I assume, other birds as well. But here in the States, I have not heard of any dino having preserved feathers. Why? Do they find feather preservation on the birds here? Also, many illustrators now put feathers on all small--or not so small--dinos willy nilly. Like ceolophisis sp? We have hundreds of remains over there in Ghost Ranch, right? But not one shred of evidence for feathers. Even at a hit or miss thing, surely in a site like that, SOME feathers should have been preserved? To me, that is a no in the did they have feathers area. So I guess I am curious about the high level of pristine preservation, or regularity of preservation of feathers on dinos from China. It seems..disproportionate to me that every critter found has the feathers there, where elsewhere, even in known birds, it is much more hit or miss. Does any of that make sense? Actually, that "prehistoric grass" was acutally a bamboo like plant, and it was only in a few parts of asia, it didn't start spreading around the world until the oligocene(?). And the laioning and sonholfen rocks were both made of volcanic ash I think, and that preserves very small details such as feathers, and also small details like scales on lizards.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jan 28, 2009 0:20:56 GMT
It makes sense if you consider these two theories: 1) exquisite preserved feathered dinosaurs come from China...A country where forgeries flourish like flowers in spring,and the art of falsification has reached new peaks of perfection...This,plus the fact China wants to shine in almost every field (scientific,economic,etc),it's enough to raise some eyebrows about the authenticity of these finds ;D 2) feathers in dinosaurs were just an asian phenomenon 8at least in the beginning)...Maybe because down there was much colder than in the rest of the world,so dinosaurs evolved feathers and fuzz for insulation You can choose between those two,Teton...But who knows what future will bring about this subject This is a false dichotomy ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 28, 2009 1:02:21 GMT
I had this argument with a friend a few years ago, about there being no grass around back then. We googled the history of grass, and found several articles stating that new evidence supports the appearance of grass during the dino's reign. Has anyone else heard that? I know I am going to regret asking this, and will probably get several pokes, but: Regarding feathered dinos....Outside of China, are there any fossilized dino feathers? I know archeopteryx and other prehistoric birds have them, but I have been wondering. I know, its never good when I do that... So, the first archeopteryx did not have evidence of feathers, right? or at least some did and some did not. So, fossilization seems to be pretty rare and hit or miss. But all the small dinos coming out of China have very well preserved covering almost every time....? Now, I had heard on a Nat Geo special that this was because the conditions in this area were especially perfect for preserving the feathers yadda yadda. Ok. but archeopteryx was not in China, right? and we still have those feathers. And, I assume, other birds as well. But here in the States, I have not heard of any dino having preserved feathers. Why? Do they find feather preservation on the birds here? Also, many illustrators now put feathers on all small--or not so small--dinos willy nilly. Like ceolophisis sp? We have hundreds of remains over there in Ghost Ranch, right? But not one shred of evidence for feathers. Even at a hit or miss thing, surely in a site like that, SOME feathers should have been preserved? To me, that is a no in the did they have feathers area. So I guess I am curious about the high level of pristine preservation, or regularity of preservation of feathers on dinos from China. It seems..disproportionate to me that every critter found has the feathers there, where elsewhere, even in known birds, it is much more hit or miss. Does any of that make sense? Actually, that "prehistoric grass" was acutally a bamboo like plant, and it was only in a few parts of asia, it didn't start spreading around the world until the oligocene(?). And the laioning and sonholfen rocks were both made of volcanic ash I think, and that preserves very small details such as feathers, and also small details like scales on lizards. CT I believe your right about the vocanic ash being the reason (they claim) for there being so many feather fossils. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 28, 2009 1:43:42 GMT
Hmmm, but volcanic ash is found around the world. Perhaps just a combination of just the right conditions and a hefty amount of luck. I know that authenticity of Chinese fossils is an issue, but the frauds have mostly been discovered in due time. A lot of the fossil feather evidence has withstood the test of time and scrutiny now, so I think must be considered authentic until proven otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 28, 2009 3:38:48 GMT
Hmmm, but volcanic ash is found around the world. Perhaps just a combination of just the right conditions and a hefty amount of luck. I know that authenticity of Chinese fossils is an issue, but the frauds have mostly been discovered in due time. A lot of the fossil feather evidence has withstood the test of time and scrutiny now, so I think must be considered authentic until proven otherwise. Yes volcanic ash is all over the world. Particularly in the western USA during the Jurassic and Cretaceous. However all most all feather evidence comes from of China.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 28, 2009 3:47:22 GMT
Yep. My point exactly. So what is so special about this area of China then? Just saying it is slightly odd, but also saying that many, many people have examined those specimens well now. And some are not exactly new anymore, so I think most are legit. The frauds do seem to be weeded out in time. Can't really blame those farmers for trying to get ahead though. I blame the market that encourages the behavior and makes fossils such a money market. Still, they seem quick to let us know when the frauds are found, so. I still think that as no specimens elsewhere have been found to be fluffy, that something else may be going on. I know there are other "sweet spot's" for sossils out there, so something about the environment in China must be very unique. Or, those dinos are the exception, and not the rule....
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 28, 2009 4:15:27 GMT
Teton's right, archeopteryx was discovered WITH feathers, but not in China, in Germany. a) Archaeopteryx is from another Lagerstätte and it's definitely from the Jurassic; scientists can't really date the Liaoning site. I wonder how can scientists figure out the evolutionary role of all those animals? b) scientists have received many specimens from farmers If that's not wrong, I don't know what is. c) on many occasions paleos haven't performed a CT scan of the fossils, just read the papers, they just describe the 'feathers' but there's no in-depth study. Besides, isn't it weird that there are lots of 'feather' impressions but practically no skin impressions? Skin is preserved more easily than 'feathers'.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 28, 2009 4:56:06 GMT
Yup. That is another question I had, no skin, no soft tissue, but plenty of feathers?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 28, 2009 5:17:34 GMT
Feathers seem more likely to leave impressions then skin in my opinion..
Skin wouldn't leave such large and noticeable impressions anyway. We may even have skin impressions fossilized in rock, but hadn't noticed.
^ This is true of many fossilized materials..
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 28, 2009 6:32:51 GMT
I'm definitely in favor of CT scans on featherfossils, especially Chinese ones. I don't think dissing all of the Liaoning fauna is the way to go, but the presence of a couple frauds justifies doublechecking really important finds. The evidence does, uh, dovetail really nicely though...
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 28, 2009 9:48:09 GMT
c) on many occasions paleos haven't performed a CT scan of the fossils, just read the papers, they just describe the 'feathers' but there's no in-depth study. Besides, isn't it weird that there are lots of 'feather' impressions but practically no skin impressions? Skin is preserved more easily than 'feathers'. Maybe because the "feather imprints" found on animals such as Sinornithosaurus and Sinosauropteryx are just collagen fibers and not TRUE fuzz.... Remember that study that pointed out the curious similarity between the so called "feathers" in Sinosauropteryx and the collagen associated with an Ichtyosaurus specimen? By the way,Tom,i really like your signature...And i'd like to know who said that statement (which i completely agree )
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 28, 2009 13:33:01 GMT
I'm definitely in favor of CT scans on featherfossils, especially Chinese ones. I don't think dissing all of the Liaoning fauna is the way to go, but the presence of a couple frauds justifies doublechecking really important finds. The evidence does, uh, dovetail really nicely though... So does anyone question the veracity of Leonardo? Nate Murphy has been charged--and will likely plead guilty--to stealing and defrauding due to a dromaeosaur fossil. Therefore, by this logic, everything he has been involved with is now up for question (he lied about the original location and everything). Actually, by the logic inherent in the argument that a bad incident puts Chinese fossils under closer scrutiny, all US dinosaur finds must be treated with more scepticism--especially because this was no farmer making a buck, he was a trained professional making a buck.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 28, 2009 13:34:22 GMT
I have been avoiding this topic, and well, the board for the most part, like the plague as of late...
There is a good chance I will continue the trend as most, if not all of this related to this topic has been brought out, paraded around, and rehashed before. Now its BACK, and I figure until the general consensus will have to become "dinosaurs all looked like the scaly ones of Jurassic park" or this will never end...
BUT...
"Do they find feather preservation on the birds here?"
No. The way that the fossils are preserved has much more to do with feathered specimens being found then anything else, like those of archaeopteryx as well. Once more I will state that no Brontornithine, or Phorusrhacid has ever been found with feathers, nor has any Ichthyornid, or Hesperornid to my knowledge. (If you know otherwise, please, inform me with a source!) Surely, like these other maniraptoran dinosaurs, due to a lack of finding preserved feathers, they along with many of the fossil birds discovered that lacked a preserved integument, they must have been clad only in the default - scales!
And the Chinese must be faking the confuciornis and its feathers as well!
Even Fedducia and Martin have now accepted the feathered fossils as legitimate and changed their baselines to still stand "outside the circle"...so, the "anti feather" crowd really doesn't have a scale to stand on...
Not that that will stop their "beliefs"
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 28, 2009 15:34:32 GMT
I had not been part of earlier discussions about this, so I was just wondering. I am not invested either way. If they have feathers, so be t. I was not aware that the bird fossiles are featherless here.So, then being as the anatomy is so similar, how did they originally decide an animal was a bird opposed to a small raptor or some such.....
Sorry, CCM, I am not meaning to caue bad feelings, I was just curious, and y'all are the best place to discuss it in my opinion.
And as far as American fossil finds, how much evidence was ruined by the collection methods of the early bone wars? Or improperly mounted heads, for instance? And the whole mess around Sue? Absolutely, this has been as bad as the frauds in China.
So, since feathers are not preserved on critters that we know had them here, it is not surprising any dinos that may have had them do not show evidence of such either? Then thast site in China must truly be a rare and special place.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 28, 2009 15:46:46 GMT
I have been avoiding this topic, and well, the board for the most part, like the plague as of late... There is a good chance I will continue the trend as most, if not all of this related to this topic has been brought out, paraded around, and rehashed before. Now its BACK, and I figure until the general consensus will have to become "dinosaurs all looked like the scaly ones of Jurassic park" or this will never end... BUT... "Do they find feather preservation on the birds here?" No. The way that the fossils are preserved has much more to do with feathered specimens being found then anything else, like those of archaeopteryx as well. Once more I will state that no Brontornithine, or Phorusrhacid has ever been found with feathers, nor has any Ichthyornid, or Hesperornid to my knowledge. (If you know otherwise, please, inform me with a source!) Surely, like these other maniraptoran dinosaurs, due to a lack of finding preserved feathers, they along with many of the fossil birds discovered that lacked a preserved integument, they must have been clad only in the default - scales! And the Chinese must be faking the confuciornis and its feathers as well! Even Fedducia and Martin have now accepted the feathered fossils as legitimate and changed their baselines to still stand "outside the circle"...so, the "anti feather" crowd really doesn't have a scale to stand on... Not that that will stop their "beliefs" Now, CCM, just because an topic has been rehashed, yet again, doesn't mean you should avoid the board. Just do what I (and many of us) do--ignore it. I couldn't help my one post in this thread--any dig at a fossil poacher is worth it (especially one who enthused how he 'found fossils in Montana all the way up to the border of Sasakatchewan' while we wonder who has been collecting in our National park [note: no actual evidence or implication of guilt])--but really, these are topics that get trotted out to get people riled up, and that only happens if we respond. I think that the topics have been well discussed by now--really, this thread should never have existed, since it already did in one way, shape or form. And we all know that some people argue from science, some from belief, and nothing will come of it. But hey, new stuff from CollectA and Safari looks pretty good, huh? ;D
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 28, 2009 17:44:22 GMT
"So, then being as the anatomy is so similar, how did they originally decide an animal was a bird opposed to a small raptor or some such" Thats a very good question, and part of the reason that the dreaded and hated cladistics have been used. Archaeopteryx without feathers would have been (and was) "mistaken" as just another small theropod...and that is exactly what it is...It just happens to be one that was fossilized with its integument largely intact. ""So, since feathers are not preserved on critters that we know had them here, it is not surprising any dinos that may have had them do not show evidence of such either? " As is the place in Germany where archaeopteryx came from. The preservation of various organisms from both of those sites is superb, from detailed and lovely insects, to reptiles, to dinosaurs. It is also important to note no one was LOOKING for feathers or feather impressions on dinosaur fossils, so I think it is no surprise that if there were feather impressions, they could have been lost. For integument to preserve, you need just the right conditions. Scales have preserved in lioning, Monjurosuchus, a champosaur displays scales on the skin covering its hind limb and tail, and Maotherium, Eomaia & Sinodelphys are all little mammals and have been preserved there in detail with imprints of fur. "Then that site in China must truly be a rare and special place." It is a rare and special place. www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleries/LiaoningInsects.htmwww.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/LiaoningSite.htmrainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/dinodis3.htmlThe "dinosaurs having scales" idea initially did not come from evidence in the fossil record, it came from the people who came up with the term dinosaur - terrible lizard, based on the likenesses they saw between dinosaur fossils and that of modern lizards - like iguanadon, who was initially portrayed with thumb spike on the nose, wobbling about on all fours and looking little more then a tremendous iguana. "Terrible lizard" then colored our thoughts about dinosaurs, and they were just always represented with scales by default. Prior to that, Pliny Moody in 1802 found fossil Anomoepus scambus footprints that thought were caused by "Noahs ravens" - giant birds that must have existed in the "pre flood state" of the world... "But hey, new stuff from CollectA and Safari looks pretty good, huh?" Yes, it does. Safari has really taken some great steps forward, as the new figures they are producing IMHO are among the best.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jan 28, 2009 20:59:02 GMT
I have actually been on one of Nate Murphy's digs. In case you are wondering, no, we didn't find a raptor
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 28, 2009 21:19:18 GMT
I have actually been on one of Nate Murphy's digs. In case you are wondering, no, we didn't find a raptor Even if you had--it might have teleported to somewhere else when it came time to determine a value (that's exactly what happened with this current one--it was found by a participant, then later showed up 'again' as having come from somewhere else).
|
|