|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Aug 31, 2010 19:45:33 GMT
No, you are right, turkeys are very handsome.  I wouldn't have used it as a description in my Dinotales Oviraptor review if I didn't think so.  ;D Besides, I love birds. ;D I was just snatching at a stronger contrast by means of a more convincing illustration. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Aug 31, 2010 21:29:28 GMT
Indeed, otherwise what was the point behind this?  I can't see why a scaly oviraptor would need to brood it's eggs in this manner. Maybe that's because they weren't scaley! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 31, 2010 21:41:04 GMT
Indeed, otherwise what was the point behind this? I can't see why a scaly oviraptor would need to brood it's eggs in this manner. Maybe that's because they weren't scaley! ;D That's the point he was trying to make, in reference to other posts. |
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Sept 1, 2010 3:01:11 GMT
I saw the Collecta one in person yesterday and was surprised by how much I liked it, it's a really neat little figure. Too bad I didn't have enough money for it though  I could only get 4 procons haha It really is a cool little figure, I like it... wish I could find the versions without the base... |
|
|
|
Post by terrorchicken on Sept 1, 2010 19:43:15 GMT
oviraptor has always reminded me of a guinea chicken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Sept 1, 2010 23:56:49 GMT
oviraptor has always reminded me of a guinea chicken. *Light bulb over head* Now why hadn't that occurred to me? I even recently drew some Vulturine guineafowl too... |
|
|
|
Post by terrorchicken on Sept 2, 2010 22:27:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Sept 3, 2010 1:08:38 GMT
Yes, the cassowary is another bird most often compared to oviraptorosaurs.  |
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Sept 6, 2010 9:43:10 GMT
Ah not this again.... I will say that feathers don't fossilise, they merely live impressions...as do scales. Under optimum conditions feathers do fossilise as do scales and soft material. There seem to be a fair few Chinese fossils with feathers well preserved (birds in particular). When it comes to Archaeopterix, the original evidence may have been somewhat heavily augmented especially when you start to look into the provenance of the original specimens. |
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Sept 6, 2010 10:18:40 GMT
Wow, I can hardly see the eggs for the mass of fossilised feathers ;D I'm not seeing fossilized scales either. That's my point. Neither depiction is right or wrong based on this evidence. It comes down to personnal taste or current fashionable thinking based on vox pop media bite science. Only another 165 mil years before someone finds a fossilised Alligator on a nest and deduces that it too was feathered to the eyeballs ;D Because everything about that brooding oviraptor and nest arrangement scream alligator and not bird. My point is that popular interpretations of such things do the rounds and then constantly get waved around as actual scientific fact when there doesn't seem to be enough scientific evidence to support it. The photo seems to show two separate fossils which possibly have a relationship to each other. The popular 'romantic' interpretation is that this is an adult animal sitting on a nest. In fact we cannot say what the relationship actually was or how the two came to be associated in this way. Personally, I like the 'brooding' interpretation but appreciate that the animal could just have easily have dropped dead whilst nesting or any other possible number of situations could have caused the assemblage. |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Sept 6, 2010 10:47:46 GMT
Neither depiction is right or wrong based on this evidence. It comes down to personnal taste or current fashionable thinking based on vox pop media bite science. But the presence of a feather covering in the dinosaurs of the clade Maniraptora is well stablished by real science, not "media bite science" or fashion. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 6, 2010 15:50:57 GMT
That's my point. Neither depiction is right or wrong based on this evidence. It comes down to personnal taste or current fashionable thinking based on vox pop media bite science. Personal taste for me has nothing to do with it. The fossilized remains of related animals that preserve feathers is all that matters. Unless there are fossilized impressions of oviraptor scales I have no reason not to think these animals were feathered. Your scaly oviraptors raiding nests sounds to me like personal taste more than anything. If I'm not mistaken there have been four Citipati fossils found in that brooding position. I guess they must have all died and coincidentally fell on the nests in the same position that modern birds brood their eggs. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 6, 2010 20:35:27 GMT
Ah not this again.... I will say that feathers don't fossilise, they merely live impressions...as do scales. Under optimum conditions feathers do fossilise as do scales and soft material. Yeah they do. I should've said "most of the time".....doyyyy. Oh well. Slap on the wrist for me, that was a stupid thing to say. Think I was on something. By the way, feathers on certain Chinese dinosaurs hold up at microscopic level! ;D And yer, feathered dinosaurs have been found by international palaeontolgists. If anything, the far-too-bald maniraptorans that we keep seeing are the 'popular' view. |
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Sept 6, 2010 21:05:31 GMT
Under optimum conditions feathers do fossilise as do scales and soft material. Yeah they do. I should've said "most of the time".....doyyyy. Oh well. Slap on the wrist for me, that was a stupid thing to say. Think I was on something. By the way, feathers on certain Chinese dinosaurs hold up at microscopic level! ;D And yer, feathered dinosaurs have been found by international palaeontolgists. If anything, the far-too-bald maniraptorans that we keep seeing are the 'popular' view. Yes, blame Horner for that one! |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 6, 2010 22:27:49 GMT
Under optimum conditions feathers do fossilise as do scales and soft material. Yeah they do. I should've said "most of the time".....doyyyy. Oh well. Slap on the wrist for me, that was a stupid thing to say. Think I was on something. By the way, feathers on certain Chinese dinosaurs hold up at microscopic level! ;D And yer, feathered dinosaurs have been found by international palaeontolgists. If anything, the far-too-bald maniraptorans that we keep seeing are the 'popular' view. But what about the subatomic level? I bet those poor, cheating farmers are using some sort of nanotechnology to fool us all. Except, of course, for the small minority that isn't fooled and can see through the lies (but the evidence has of course been covered up because of a conspiracy or something..my sarcasm bone is running off the rails right now). ;D |
|
Tyrannosauron
Junior Member
Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Posts: 92
|
Post by Tyrannosauron on Sept 7, 2010 3:12:57 GMT
Yeah they do. I should've said "most of the time".....doyyyy. Oh well. Slap on the wrist for me, that was a stupid thing to say. Think I was on something. By the way, feathers on certain Chinese dinosaurs hold up at microscopic level! ;D And yer, feathered dinosaurs have been found by international palaeontolgists. If anything, the far-too-bald maniraptorans that we keep seeing are the 'popular' view. But what about the subatomic level? I bet those poor, cheating farmers are using some sort of nanotechnology to fool us all. Except, of course, for the small minority that isn't fooled and can see through the lies (but the evidence has of course been covered up because of a conspiracy or something..my sarcasm bone is running off the rails right now). ;D It's worse than that. We're clearly all brains in vats being deceived by evil robotic demons that look like Leonardo DiCaprio. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 7, 2010 3:56:15 GMT
Yeah they do. I should've said "most of the time".....doyyyy. Oh well. Slap on the wrist for me, that was a stupid thing to say. Think I was on something. By the way, feathers on certain Chinese dinosaurs hold up at microscopic level! ;D And yer, feathered dinosaurs have been found by international palaeontolgists. If anything, the far-too-bald maniraptorans that we keep seeing are the 'popular' view. But what about the subatomic level? I bet those poor, cheating farmers are using some sort of nanotechnology to fool us all. Except, of course, for the small minority that isn't fooled and can see through the lies (but the evidence has of course been covered up because of a conspiracy or something..my sarcasm bone is running off the rails right now). ;D Check out this fossil, is it feathers or what? And it doesn't come from a Dinosaur but an Archosaur. And the second link is new information supporting the original information. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1036937.stmwww.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a924373312 |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 7, 2010 5:01:37 GMT
But what about the subatomic level? I bet those poor, cheating farmers are using some sort of nanotechnology to fool us all. Except, of course, for the small minority that isn't fooled and can see through the lies (but the evidence has of course been covered up because of a conspiracy or something..my sarcasm bone is running off the rails right now). ;D Check out this fossil, is it feathers or what? And it doesn't come from a Dinosaur but an Archosaur. And the second link is new information supporting the original information. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1036937.stmwww.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a924373312Longisquama has been at the centre of arguments since at least 2000--when the BBC article was written (I recall stories of near-fights at SVP over that weird little lizard-thing). I don't think, except for a few holdouts, that the structures are considered conventional feathers. I know nothing about Praeornis. What little I can find indicates that it is likely from a maniraptoran dinosaur (or a plant. It's apparently a little vague). www.dinodata.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9105&Itemid=67From what I could find, apparently Praeornis is nothing more than feathers (or leaves...) so making inferences of its relationships seems difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by eris on Sept 7, 2010 7:03:49 GMT
Yeah they do. I should've said "most of the time".....doyyyy. Oh well. Slap on the wrist for me, that was a stupid thing to say. Think I was on something. By the way, feathers on certain Chinese dinosaurs hold up at microscopic level! ;D And yer, feathered dinosaurs have been found by international palaeontolgists. If anything, the far-too-bald maniraptorans that we keep seeing are the 'popular' view. But what about the subatomic level? I bet those poor, cheating farmers are using some sort of nanotechnology to fool us all. Except, of course, for the small minority that isn't fooled and can see through the lies (but the evidence has of course been covered up because of a conspiracy or something..my sarcasm bone is running off the rails right now). ;D Those poor cheating farmers knew enough about paleontology to fool Phil Currie and Xu Xing  Of course they couldn't get past Storrs Olson, because as an ornithologist he had more real scientific training than the establishment cladistic paleontologists |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Sept 7, 2010 9:10:48 GMT
|
|
I wouldn't have used it as a description in my Dinotales Oviraptor review if I didn't think so. 
;D Besides, I love birds. ;D I was just snatching at a stronger contrast by means of a more convincing illustration. 
I could only get 4 procons haha
Of course they couldn't get past Storrs Olson, because as an ornithologist he had more real scientific training than the establishment cladistic paleontologists