|
Post by crazycrowman on Apr 7, 2008 16:32:48 GMT
"when I was in Alberta at the Royal Tyrell Museum, they had a sample of fossilized carnotaurus skin and it was very rough and bumpy. I've heard theories of the bigger theropods having feathers, but I honestly can't bring myself to believe that. I have a hard enough time remembering that the dromaeosaurs had feathers, supposedly" Carnotarus would almost certainly NOT been feathered, as it is not of close relation to those that were, and we do have quite a bit of fossil skin impressions showing the animal was "scaled", though, much more like a crocodilan then like other modern "reptiles". Ceratosauria are thought to have diverged from the main branch of Theropoda way back. Like the Ceratopsids, these guys wouldn't have been fluffy unless feathers evolved WAY back in dinosaurian history. (which could be the case, as we really don't know, and probably never will know when and why feathers came to be - we can only look as far as the fossils let us) On the other hand, people commonly forget that T rex, and its relatives are distinct from the "Carnosauria", (Allosaurs and kin) - Tyrannoraptora are coelurosaurian theropods, and may well have been feathered if not completely, they could have had them for display, or been feathered at some stage in their lives. (like as chicks) We do know Dilong paradoxus, a early tyrannosaurid relative had feathers. Many dromaeosaurs had feathers, no "supposed" about it. "the "dinosaurs of china" exhibit is on display right now at the Oregon museum of science and industry, and they had a genuine microraptor fossil with feather imprints. it did look quite convincing" It really doesn't matter if it convinces us, the general public:-) only that it is, and it has passed the tests to determine it being real. It does sound like a cool exhibit, I wish I lived closer to Oregon. "for heaven's sake, they put the sickle claw on their velociraptor's MIDDLE toe, one toe out from where it should be. I was a little offended." Indeed!!! That would bother me too! I would have probably said something to the museum staff. Really, all they need to do is look at modern birds, and the formation of their feet (especially the modern raptorial birds) and they will see the large killing claw is on the inside!
|
|
|
Post by sepp on Apr 8, 2008 10:50:26 GMT
^^ I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression I was a non-believer about dromaeosaurs and feathers. I know it's a proven fact, I just have a very bad way of wording my thoughts. sorry about that. I said the feathers on the microraptor were convincing because I was trying to be funny XD I fail so hard, jeez!
and I am seriously considering going back to the museum and pointing out their mistake on the velociraptor feet. I feel that sort of mistake is inexcusable.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 9, 2008 15:14:24 GMT
As I mentioned in a different post--we have Carnotaurus skin impressions, and guess what--no feathers, just bumps. It is only in the manirpators and other coelurosaurs that feathers (and similar structures) show up. So while I have no problem with certain types of dins having feathers, I have major problems with feathers being illustrated on most of them (for example, there is no reason to draw the conclusion that ANY ornithischian had feathers--I'm looking at you, Luis Rey). There is no harm, however, in speculating that closer relatives MIGHT have had feathers (for example, the tyrannosaur Dilong had some sort of feather ergo we might propose that other tyrannosaurs, at some stage, had feathers--this is mainly proposed for T rex chicks, for example).
But I have found that most people who don't like feathered dinos overall are more opposed based on their preconceptions as opposed to disagreeing with the interpretations of the evidence at hand. Just like some people--scientists included--took a long time to get over dinosaurs that did not have dragging tails, or that dinos' legs were erect under the body, not splayed out. Turns out science is not a democracy or an opinion poll--if the evidence is pointing in one direction, that is where the conclusion (should) go. Doesn't matter what people want to be true--that has a name that isn't science.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 9, 2008 15:31:44 GMT
So while I have no problem with certain types of dins having feathers, I have major problems with feathers being illustrated on most of them (for example, there is no reason to draw the conclusion that ANY ornithischian had feathers--I'm looking at you, Luis Rey). There is no harm, however, in speculating that closer relatives MIGHT have had feathers Agreed. A straw man argument is often put forward along these lines - "so you think brachiosaurus had feathers? huh? Mr clever scientist?". Evolution deniers use a similar approach on the dinosaur- bird link in general - "so, you think a Brachiosaurus grew wings and became a bird? huh? Mr Clever scientist?" It's a big smelly logical falicy - peeee ewwwwww! ;D However, I agree with my protagonists that the issue has been over simplified, especially in the media. Juravenator and Compsognathus fossils preserve skin but no feathers, yet they are within the aformentioned phylogenetic bracket for feathers. The question, then, is how deep into the dinosaur family tree do feathers extend?
|
|
|
Post by richard on Apr 18, 2008 21:44:53 GMT
Of do you mean that it simply won't look right, and aesthetics are more important than being accurate? No, it is accepted on small dinosaurs, not because they look good or bad, because there are prooves. I'm just saying that nowadays people add feathers to any dinosaur, why? Until a serious organization confirms that tyrannosaurus had feathers, I will put my foot on my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by dinowight on Apr 20, 2008 23:54:18 GMT
Of do you mean that it simply won't look right, and aesthetics are more important than being accurate? No, it is accepted on small dinosaurs, not because they look good or bad, because there are prooves. I'm just saying that nowadays people add feathers to any dinosaur, why? Until a serious organization confirms that tyrannosaurus had feathers, I will put my foot on my mouth. Sorry to be pedantic, but there are no proofs in palaeontology, only evidence for and against. You can't prove Archaeopteryx had feathers, there is the possibility that all the "Feathered" examples just happened to fall onto a patch of feathers arranged in a pattern that makes it look like in situ plumage. It's very unlikely, but the possibility still remains.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Apr 21, 2008 0:03:37 GMT
^^^ I don't think that's the same case here. China has a very fraudulent background (I know ad hominem, but hear me out) The Solnhofen Lagerstätte offers excellent examples of soft tissue, the Archeopteryx is just an example. In China there are in fact many sites that offer such wonderful specimens (their Cambrian findings rival those of the Burgess Shale), I'm not saying that ALL their fossils are fake, but I still have my doubst about the feathered dinosaurs, because in some cases it's been proved that the feathers were spurious. I don't see what's wrong with some incredulity here
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 21, 2008 4:23:53 GMT
^^^ I don't think that's the same case here. China has a very fraudulent background (I know ad hominem, but hear me out) The Solnhofen Lagerstätte offers excellent examples of soft tissue, the Archeopteryx is just an example. In China there are in fact many sites that offer such wonderful specimens (their Cambrian findings rival those of the Burgess Shale), I'm not saying that ALL their fossils are fake, but I still have my doubst about the feathered dinosaurs, because in some cases it's been proved that the feathers were spurious. I don't see what's wrong with some incredulity here Actually, the instances of fraud have probably done exactly what we would expect of scientists--I suspect they are generally more cautious about the material from China now. in other words, they are more liable to make sure that the structures are 'real' and not manufactured, in particular if they come from certain areas. Incredulity is science, blind belief is not.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Apr 21, 2008 5:10:24 GMT
Slightly off-tangent and adding to my post from another thread, I was going through the Dinosaurs book by Thomas Holtz and illustrated by Luis Rey, and Rey puts fuzz and feathers not only on almost all the theropods--eoraptor all the way to tyrannosaurus, passing through dilophosaurus, ornitholestes, shuvuuia, allosaurus, ceratosaurus, gallimimus et al (he didn't dare put it on carnotaurus mercifully, because he'd be laughed out of court due to the countervailing evidence)--but also on hypsilophodon and leallynasaura.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Apr 21, 2008 6:23:18 GMT
There was also suspicious-looking fuzz on the lower lip of Crassigyrinus (I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to), the fringe of the sail of Ouranosaurus, and the head of iguanodon, but I was charitable and attributed them to badly-drawn spikes or bristles rather than protofeathers per se
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 21, 2008 10:12:09 GMT
Luis Rey is certainly one of the more extreme palaeoartists.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 21, 2008 11:33:18 GMT
^^^ I don't think that's the same case here. China has a very fraudulent background (I know ad hominem, but hear me out) The Solnhofen Lagerstätte offers excellent examples of soft tissue, the Archeopteryx is just an example. In China there are in fact many sites that offer such wonderful specimens (their Cambrian findings rival those of the Burgess Shale), I'm not saying that ALL their fossils are fake, but I still have my doubst about the feathered dinosaurs, because in some cases it's been proved that the feathers were spurious. I don't see what's wrong with some incredulity here On the question of maintaining incredulity, lets weigh up the two scenarios and outline what exactly one has to accept in each.... --------1. That all of the feathered dinosaurs from China are either fakes, composites, fabrications, or misinterpretations. It must be all, otherwise there is no argument. Here is the round up of things one has to accept, or consider worthy for maintaining incredulous: A. That every author of every pro-dino-feathers-paper, plus all of the peer reviewers, and editors involved, are mistaken or unable to identify a fake, even with the knowledge that there is a high probability they are fakes. As Sbell pointed out - Chinese fossils are now the most highly scrutinized in the world. I don't know the exact figure - I guess there are hundreds of such papers. B. That Chinese artists have the skill and facilities and enough anatomical and taphonomical knowledge to create fakes of such superior quality as to deceive those looking for them, and trained to investigate them. Also, that this has been accomplished hundreds of times. C. That by accident or design, these finds fit anatomy based predictions made way before their discovery. If the latter, that the artists has sufficient knowledge of prevailing (at the time potential) evolutionary hypotheses of birds/dinosaurs. D. That the Chinese artists are skilled enough to fake successive fossils up to species-level accuracy. There are numerous fossils of Microraptor for example. E. That it is reasonable to dismiss any fossils of feathered dinosaurs originating from China purely because of their geographical location (I understand China to be 9,596,960 SQ KM), irrelevant of other factors. F. That it is reasonable to ignore the high likelyhood that if feathers were present on dinosaurs, they would be expected to be preserved in Chinese lagestatten. i.e. to ignore that indisputable feathers do originate from chinese deposits, or at lease to presume that every one is from a bird. -------2. That some of the feathered dinosaurs from China are genuine. I say some, becasue we only need a single genuine fossil to make a case. And what we must accept in this scenario: A. Erm - help me out here - what am I supposed to be incredulous about? Maybe someone could provide a list for this scenario like the one above? Like Tomhet, I'm not saying ALL feathered dinos are necessarily genuine, or that none are fake, or that anything listed above is impossible for that matter. All I'm arguing is that when one weighs up the evidence for and against feathered dinos and factors in the scenarios under which each must be placed to be true, the likelyhood that some dinosaurs had feathers is overwhelming. Is it really that unlikely that at least one of the specimens of feathered dinosaurs is a genuine fossil feathered dinosaur? On what basis should incredulity outweigh credulity on this matter?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 21, 2008 12:39:23 GMT
On what basis should incredulity outweigh credulity on this matter? Well, given the weight of evidence, it will come down to..."but I don't like the idea of feathers on dinosaurs". There are 19 genera listed on Wikipedifa; I don't know how complete that list is, but as you pointed out, that would involve a conspiracy of JFK-level complication to make sure that ALL of them were fakes. The other question is, how would we know what a Lagerstätte feather would look like. Oh yeah, Archaeopteryx, an animal that is clearly avian, with some dinosaurian features. Apparently that one is above reproach. Perhaps the problem is that some paleoartists get the idea in their heads, and run with it into bizarre territory (see: discussion elsewhere re: Luis Rey). They not only portray dinosaurs in an unfamiliar way, but start portraying familiar dinosaurs in an unfamiliar way. By the same token, there was resistance, particularly by the "old guard" or "old fashioned" that were not happy with all dinosaurs being portrayed as fast, active creatures; they were brought up with preconceptions of lumbering lizards with dragging tails and slow minds. Nowadays, I don't think anyone would be very forgiving of a company or an artist that ignored our current, better interpretations of the fossil evidence and produced tail-dragger T rex and kangaroo Iguanodon. Likewise, the evidence we have is challenging the preconceptions we have. And until someone goes fossil by fossil (not just species by species) and proves that every single feather or proto-feather is a product of a very good fraud, we are going to have to expect that those feathers are not going to go away (just keep them on the species where we have evidence for them!).
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 21, 2008 14:32:55 GMT
"I don't think anyone would be very forgiving of a company or an artist that ignored our current, better interpretations of the fossil evidence and produced tail-dragger T rex" You mean like the Papo rex? ;D I know some people on this forum who do forgive this j/k - it's only rearing up.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 21, 2008 14:45:20 GMT
Having said all that, I agree that there is being conservative with feathers, and then going way over the top:
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 21, 2008 15:04:54 GMT
There was also suspicious-looking fuzz on the lower lip of Crassigyrinus (I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to), the fringe of the sail of Ouranosaurus, and the head of iguanodon, but I was charitable and attributed them to badly-drawn spikes or bristles rather than protofeathers per se I have seen that Crassigyrinus picture. As far as I can tell, those fringes are based on what a wobbegong shark would have--a fringe around the head to break up the outline for ambushing prey. It's speculative, considering that Crassis really come across more like eels, polypterids or cat sharks--long, sinewy, strong bodies with powerful jaws--and I can't think of any that have facial fringes like that.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 21, 2008 15:05:51 GMT
Having said all that, I agree that there is being conservative with feathers, and then going way over the top: What's wrong with turkey dinos? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 21, 2008 15:44:16 GMT
no evidence ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 21, 2008 15:50:48 GMT
But if great swinging flabby globules of rubbery red flesh is your thing, that's fine
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 21, 2008 15:53:12 GMT
Curses, foiled by logic and common sense.
|
|