New feathered dino - Epidexipteryx

[Dinotoyforum]

The evidence just keeps piling up

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7684796.stm

[Ajax]

cool little critter, reminds me of a flightless scrub turkey.

[bustosdomecq]

Anybody who has read the entry for epidexipteryx in wikipedia ((I'm just waiting for the Nature paper to show up at the magazine stand so I can analyze and tear the study apart, since it's likely to be as badly written and argued as Xu Xing's other papers) should realize something is wrong. An oviraptor--in the mid-Jurassic? With therizinosauroid features? Again, in the mid-Jurassic? Therizinosaurus hadn't even evolved yet! And those aren't tail feathers--"the vanes were not branched into individual filaments but made up of a single ribbon-like sheet"--unless one wants to call anything that protrudes out of a membrane a feather, in which I too am a fluffy bird. Heck, not even Mark Norell considers them proper feathers--and when he of all people says something is odd about a feather, one should realize something is not right. And a pygostyle --heck, even archaeopteryx had a full bony tail. And to no one's surprise it was found by a 'farmer'.

Of course, the dino bird people will fall for it. Figures

And what is this talk by the 'researcher' [sic] about flying mammals in the 'biota'. Really? A BAT in the mid Jurassic? As expected, he was talking about a gliding critter. Oh well, if one can twist the meaning of 'feather', why not bend that of the word 'fly' too?

[thagomizer]

It's not an oviraptor, it has superficially oviraptor-like features (meaning: tall, squat head). It's a scansoriopterygid, if you read the article, which have nothing to do with oviraptors.

Even if it were, it would actually make a pretty good cantidate for a common ancestor of ovis and therizinosaurs, which would be found in the jurassic.

The "flying" mammal they refer to is Volaticotherium, which could glide. Probably a Chinese translation problem.

[bustosdomecq]

Oh, and in another page we read that the scansoriopterygidae are just birds after all. That's how to do it, then--just muddy the waters between birds and dinosaurs, and presto!--a feathered dinosaur!

[sid]

Mmh...Normally i'm not too fond of those alleged feathered dinosaurs (especially regarding Dromeosaurs and Tyrannosaurids),but i'm fine with Oviraptors,Scansiopteryds (or whatever the hell their name is ;D) and other "pseudo-birds" critters for being feathered,so...Nice find,after all


I assume that beastie was arboreal,mh?

[Anapsids]

So colorful with their "Dinosaurs of paradise" interpretation.

Colors is only used for 2 things; camouflage(both for hunters and preys), and communications. Most species prefer to be alive than to be colorful. The birds of paradise have no great predators after them in their natural habitats. And the introduction of seemingly harmless rats, cats, and snakes made their numbers plummeted.

In order for these dinos to be this colorful, they have to lived in a relatively safe environment. Was there such a place in Jurassic china? Don't know.

I have another theory for dinos of paradise though. They were actually poisonous creatures, like those colorful toads. Any predators would be scared off by their colors. ;D

[crazycrowman]

Most species prefer to be alive than to be colorful."

True, but only to a degree. As for mainland animals with various degrees of predation, versus animals that possess elaborate display features despite such predation, that would be easy to debate by looking at birds like peafowl, who despite various eagle species that prey upon then, canids and big cats, they cart around one heck of a train of feathers.

"The birds of paradise have no great predators after them in their natural habitats. And the introduction of seemingly harmless rats, cats, and snakes made their numbers plummeted."


Not the case at all. Hunting the various species of birds of paradise by humans for their plumes was the main reason for the decline in numbers of various species. Birds of paradise are NOT a species that suffered unduly from having introduced predators, nor were they a family that evolved in an area devoid of predators. They are now under pressure from habitat destruction and deforestation though. The birds of paradise actually have rather "tame" sexual adornments when compared to many of the other bird species out there, especially some of the Galliformes.


(Amusingly I will also note that the birds of paradise are closely related to the corvids.)

"They were actually poisonous creatures, like those colorful toads. Any predators would be scared off by their colors."

There are poisonous birds, so that would not necessarily be something out of the question, though it would be impossible to "prove". The aptly named Pitohuis especially the Hooded, (Pitohui dichrous) and the Blue-capped Ifrita (Ifrita kowaldiIfrita) both have skin and feathers that, just like the south american dart frogs (Dendrobatidae), contain significant levels of toxins that the birds derive from the food they eat.

Some info about them -
nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2001/2/intoxnewguineabirds.cfm

[Dinotoyforum]

The specimen -

[sid]

Oct 23, 2008 12:14:49 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

The specimen -

Interesting...With those teeth what could have eaten,if it was arboreal? Insects?

[Anapsids]

Lots of new information to me. Thanks crazycrowman.
Although noone really know what the dinosaurs' color were.
By the way I prefer a colorful figure to a bland one.

[Dinotoyforum]

Oct 23, 2008 12:19:36 GMT sid said:

Interesting...With those teeth what could have eaten,if it was arboreal? Insects?

It was flightless so it probably wasn't arboreal, at least not completely. But yes, you are right about the diet...

"the procumbency of the teeth in Epidexipteryx suggest that it was grabbing small prey, perhaps insects and/or their larvae."

from here: scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/10/epidexipteryx_at_last.php

[sid]

Oct 23, 2008 13:19:29 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

Oct 23, 2008 12:19:36 GMT sid said:

Interesting...With those teeth what could have eaten,if it was arboreal? Insects?

It was flightless so it probably wasn't arboreal, at least not completely. But yes, you are right about the diet...

"the procumbency of the teeth in Epidexipteryx suggest that it was grabbing small prey, perhaps insects and/or their larvae."

from here: scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/10/epidexipteryx_at_last.php

Thanks for the link

[deanm]

Assumption 1. Deanm will be slammed for not knowing his dinosaur systematics well enough to participate in discussion ;D So feel free to correct my knowledge.

Given that the "exposed to science" fossil record is only a portion of all the species that have existed and cladistics therory why would we not expect a common ancestor of ovis and therizinosaurs (with or without other lineages) to be found in the Jurassic?

Deanm

[sbell]

Oct 23, 2008 16:43:30 GMT deanm said:

Assumption 1. Deanm will be slammed for not knowing his dinosaur systematics well enough to participate in discussion ;D So feel free to correct my knowledge.

Given that the "exposed to science" fossil record is only a portion of all the species that have existed and cladistics therory why would we not expect a common ancestor of ovis and therizinosaurs (with or without other lineages) to be found in the Jurassic?

Deanm

Deanm--that is exactly how paleontological hypotheses are supported (or not)--eventually, a common ancestor-type fossil is found that either supports or does not support what researchers predicted. In this instance, it makes sense that an ancestral animal would exist before the two descendant groups (assuming that is what they are--these things can take a while to work out).

[thagomizer]

Oct 23, 2008 13:19:29 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

Oct 23, 2008 12:19:36 GMT sid said:

Interesting...With those teeth what could have eaten,if it was arboreal? Insects?

It was flightless so it probably wasn't arboreal, at least not completely. But yes, you are right about the diet...

"the procumbency of the teeth in Epidexipteryx suggest that it was grabbing small prey, perhaps insects and/or their larvae."

from here: scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/10/epidexipteryx_at_last.php

I dunno, the closely related Epidendrosaurus is pretty clearly arboreal. Don't need flight to get into a tree, just ask goats

Given that the "exposed to science" fossil record is only a portion of all the species that have existed and cladistics therory why would we not expect a common ancestor of ovis and therizinosaurs (with or without other lineages) to be found in the Jurassic?

We ould. In fact given the evidence, we can say they must have been present in the Jurassic. There are true, primitive theriz-like ovis (Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx) from the very early Cretaceous. There are true, primitive ovi-like therizinosaurs (Beipiaosaurus) from the same time period.

So, unless God created both from Adam's rib in the early Cretaceous, their common ancestor must have lived in at least the Late Jurassic.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Interesting- The feathers look real to me, not just painted on. I do not like the way they looked, though

[kuni]

The BBC article seemed like hype, but I have to say, if it was me with that fossil, display feathers would be the explanaation I'd probably go with.

Really ugly little dino, though.

[Dinotoyforum]

/\ ugly!? it's cute! You wouldn't want one of these snuggly little things for a pet?

[Dinotoyforum]

Oct 23, 2008 23:31:28 GMT thagomizer said:

Oct 23, 2008 13:19:29 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

Don't need flight to get into a tree, just ask goats

Goats can get into trees, so can I, but neither could really be described as arboreal;D