|
|
Post by zopteryx on Apr 12, 2011 3:30:12 GMT
Specifically, I mean on the body of a feathered dinosaur? This probably varied between the different groups of feathered dinosaurs, but in general, most reconstructions show the feathers stopping at the ankles, wrists, and just behind the eye. How accurate is this version of a feathered dinosaur and what are some other potential versions (eg: would there be that many feathers on an ornithomimid or a tyrannosaur?)? I know we can't really know for sure about any of this(...until China produces some more superb fossils!  ). This info will help me when I sculpt some feathered dinos. Thanks for the help!  |
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Apr 12, 2011 5:09:50 GMT
Depends on what dinosaur you are talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Apr 12, 2011 6:33:25 GMT
most reconstructions show the feathers stopping at the ankles, wrists, and just behind the eye. Some fossils show feathers/protofeathers from from tip of snout to tip of tail, and even to the toes. Check Microraptor, Sinocalliopteryx, Anchiornis, Sinosauropteryx... |
|
|
|
Post by sepp on Apr 12, 2011 8:12:19 GMT
most reconstructions show the feathers stopping at the ankles, wrists, and just behind the eye. Some fossils show feathers/protofeathers from from tip of snout to tip of tail, and even to the toes. Check Microraptor, Sinocalliopteryx, Anchiornis, Sinosauropteryx... I believe fossils show that feathers didn't stop at the wrists, but that they would have run down the arm and perhaps even grown over the back of at least the middle finger. For example, the Berlin fossil of Archaeopteryx. (Feathers/protofeatehrs would have done this in at least Maniraptora.) |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 12, 2011 10:06:52 GMT
I believe fossils show that feathers didn't stop at the wrists, but that they would have run down the arm and perhaps even grown over the back of at least the middle finger. For example, the Berlin fossil of Archaeopteryx. (Feathers/protofeatehrs would have done this in at least Maniraptora.) I hate dromaeosaurs with hands detached from their 'wings'. They should form part of the 'wing' as per this illustration by Scott Hartman. EDIT: I've just remembered that Matt Martyniuk (whoever HE is ) posted on this issue quite recently, as regards dromaeosaurs anyway: dinogoss.blogspot.com/2011/02/heat-feathers-and-half-arsed.html |
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Apr 12, 2011 11:32:47 GMT
In dromaeosaurs, the feathers should go down the 2nd finger.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 12, 2011 14:20:27 GMT
Just my two cents... Tyrannosaurids: depending on the species, but in general i'd say they were scaly with protofeathers only on the upper neck, back and (maybe) on the upper tail OR completely scaly but with lil' protofeathers all over their bodies (like, as i already said in another topic, elephant's air). Dromeosaurs: they were probably all feathered, with longer or shorter arm (wing?) feathers, bald, partially or totally feathered heads, existent or non-existent pennaceous feathers on the tail AGAIN depending on the species. Oviraptorids: just as above. Ornithomimosaurids: i'd say they were mostly protofeathered with no pennaceous or overly elaborated feathers. Therizinosaurids: more or less protofeathered with no true feathers, even if i'm not totally sure on that point... other celurosaurids: fuzzy protofeathered basically all the small/medium-sized taxa, more or less depending (again) on the species. Abelisaurids: definitely scaly. Allosaurids: scaly or maybe protofeathered as for Tyrannosaurids (elephant's hair version). Megalosaurids/Spinosaurids: scaly. Dilophosaurids/Noasaurids/ Choelophysids: scaly or protofeathered, depending on the species (swear it's the last time i use this sentence! ;D) Sauropods: scaly, but MAYBE when they were very young they had some sort of fuzz.... Just sayin'  Hadrosaurids/Iguanodontids: same as above. Small, medium-sided ornithopods: more or less "fuzz" depending on... ARGH, shut up! Pachycefalosaurids: scaly or fuzzy, with quills. Ceratopsids: definitely scaly with more or less quills. Ankylosaurids/Stegosaurids: definitely scaly. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 12, 2011 14:57:34 GMT
There is no evidence of any feathered dinosaurs that have entirely scaly fingers, so you can throw that right out. Caudipteryx has naked 'pads' on the underside of the fingers, though it's possible the feathers just came loose there. Similarly, there is no evidence of any feathered theropod with feathers ending just before the eye. This "look" was invented by Greg Paul before any feathered dinos were known, and was just a guess of his, as good as any other at the time. We now know that many, if not most, feathered dinos had feathers nearly to the tip of the snout, or at least the tip of the antorbital fenestra. Even many prehistoric birds had totally scaly snouts with no beak, though almost all reconstructions in existence get this wrong and assume they looked like modern birds. There's variation here of course: Beipiaosaurus has a naked "face". As others have said, in many feathered dinos the feathers don't end at the ankle like they do in modern birds, but rather go all the way to the toes (and in one or two known species, they cover the toes as well). We know they ended at the ankle in Archaeopteryx, Sinornithosaurus, and oviraptorosaurs, so it's possible that the "fluffy legged" types all evolved that independently. It happens often in modern birds so that wouldn't be a surprise. All known coelurosaurs have feathers to the tip of the tail, at least in a 'crest' along the top of it, but a total covering in maniraptors. Everything more advanced than therizinosaurs had vaned feathers on the tail, usually as a fan at the tip. Not to self promote, but on my paleoart web site here www.henteeth.com/nh/paleoart.htm I've done a lot of feathered dinos in an attempt to rigorously show what they looked like based on evidence. Most of those should be close to definitive on at least the arrangement and kinds of feathers that were present. In general you can apply these to their close relatives (for example, what applies to Velociraptor probably also applies to Dromaeosaurus). |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 12, 2011 17:04:41 GMT
I'd like to point out that Mr Martyniuk has a DeviantArt account too, which some people might find makes for easier browsing. mattmart.deviantart.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by neovenator08 on Apr 12, 2011 17:56:19 GMT
Sauropods: scaly, but MAYBE when they were very young they had some sort of fuzz.... Just sayin' You've given me the image of a furry Brachiosaurus now...  |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 12, 2011 18:49:51 GMT
Sauropods: scaly, but MAYBE when they were very young they had some sort of fuzz.... Just sayin' You've given me the image of a furry Brachiosaurus now... That would be awesome, but unfortunately (fortunately?) skin impressions from hatchling titanosaurs are known and they're completely scaly. |
|
|
|
Post by neovenator08 on Apr 12, 2011 18:55:55 GMT
On a side note, what skin impressions/feathers do we know of? What dinosaurs do we know are feathered, and what ones are just worked out from family connections?
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 12, 2011 19:09:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by neovenator08 on Apr 12, 2011 19:16:56 GMT
Psittacosaurus? That gives fuel to the fire of feathery Triceraptops... |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 12, 2011 19:24:16 GMT
Psittacosaurus? That gives fuel to the fire of feathery Triceraptops... Well, at least one species had quills (see below for Wiki pic), although they were more of a display structure than insulatory, and no one's ascertained yet as to whether they are homologous with theropod fuzz or evolved independently. (Which is a boring disclaimer. Paleofreak's done a good job of persuading me that such primitive 'protofeather' structures could be a basal condition not just within Dinosauria, but Ornithodira. Which would be really bloody cool.) Certainly they give credence to the idea that Triceratops could have had quill-like display structures on its back/tail. Now that would've been a sight...  There were images on Wikipedia of a hypothetical quilled Triceratops, but they seem to have vanished. Shame. Maybe Matt M can fill us in. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 12, 2011 19:50:20 GMT
As far as i know we have various skin impressions of Psittacosaurus, from the sides, back and upper legs, and they show non-overlapping scales... Maybe the quills were restricted to the tail. Regarding fuzzy baby sauropods... I knew that titanosaurs were scaly from their birth, but maybe other species weren't (maybe the ones living in much colder climates) |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 12, 2011 19:52:11 GMT
As far as i know we have various skin impressions of Psittacosaurus, from the sides, back and upper legs, and they show non-overlapping scales... Maybe the quills were restricted to the tail. That's what I said...or, er, meant to imply. Especially by showing that image. They were seemingly just display structures. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 12, 2011 22:33:17 GMT
There were images on Wikipedia of a hypothetical quilled Triceratops, but they seem to have vanished. Shame. Maybe Matt M can fill us in. Here ya go:  This is based on an undescribed Triceratops mummy nicknamed "Lane". The skin shows crocodile-like scutes on the belly, and bumpy, irregular scales on the upper torso and limbs. Among those are strange scales with a raised bump in the middle. Some people have speculated that these could be anchor points for quills. This is just a very speculative idea at this point. I personally am not sure that would be the case, because the quills in Psittacosaurus seem to stem from deep in the skin, implying they form from follicles, like feathers, rather than being scale protrusions. This is true for Psittacosaurus. We have a nearly 100% complete picture of its skin, and we even can see what kind of patterns the scales had (mostly small and pebbly, with some big flat broad ones over the shoulder region). Tianyulong, however, has both Psittacosaurus-like quills and an undercoat of softer, fuzzier filaments covering almost its entire body. It's likely, imo, that this undercoat is derived from stiffer quills, and Tianyu evolved from a scaly ancestor with only a few quills. This would have happened in parallel to theropods, which evolved short, downy feathers from longer, simpler, stiffer EBFF quills. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 12, 2011 23:18:45 GMT
You're not in favour of the idea that 'fuzz' could have originated early in the evolution of the Ornithodira then, MM?
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Apr 13, 2011 2:58:33 GMT
Just my two cents... Tyrannosaurids: depending on the species, but in general i'd say they were scaly with protofeathers only on the upper neck, back and (maybe) on the upper tail OR completely scaly but with lil' protofeathers all over their bodies (like, as i already said in another topic, elephant's air). Dromeosaurs: they were probably all feathered, with longer or shorter arm (wing?) feathers, bald, partially or totally feathered heads, existent or non-existent pennaceous feathers on the tail AGAIN depending on the species. Oviraptorids: just as above. Ornithomimosaurids: i'd say they were mostly protofeathered with no pennaceous or overly elaborated feathers. Therizinosaurids: more or less protofeathered with no true feathers, even if i'm not totally sure on that point... other celurosaurids: fuzzy protofeathered basically all the small/medium-sized taxa, more or less depending (again) on the species. Abelisaurids: definitely scaly. Allosaurids: scaly or maybe protofeathered as for Tyrannosaurids (elephant's hair version). Megalosaurids/Spinosaurids: scaly. Dilophosaurids/Noasaurids/ Choelophysids: scaly or protofeathered, depending on the species (swear it's the last time i use this sentence! ;D) Sauropods: scaly, but MAYBE when they were very young they had some sort of fuzz.... Just sayin' Hadrosaurids/Iguanodontids: same as above. Small, medium-sided ornithopods: more or less "fuzz" depending on... ARGH, shut up! Pachycefalosaurids: scaly or fuzzy, with quills. Ceratopsids: definitely scaly with more or less quills. Ankylosaurids/Stegosaurids: definitely scaly. A lot of these are based off of imagination right? |
|
).
