|
Post by richard on May 7, 2008 21:46:09 GMT
ok you won, in some points. Most of my questions have been replied well, but the only thing I keep wondering is why all dinosaurs must have feathers?? -So here is the argument I repeatedly hear--dinosaurs aren't birds (technically true but only because of a logical reversal) so there can't be feather fossils on some dinosaurs (not true). - No, I never meant that; besides, I can't discuss that because I am not a scientist
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 7, 2008 22:17:46 GMT
ok you won, in some points. Most of my questions have been replied well, but the only thing I keep wondering is why all dinosaurs must have feathers?? Thanks richard (btw Nobody here is arguing that all dinosaurs must have feathers) Looks like this is the end feathered dinosaur debate!? J/K - we all know Pilty has yet to come to his senses. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 7, 2008 22:29:33 GMT
ok you won, in some points. Most of my questions have been replied well, but the only thing I keep wondering is why all dinosaurs must have feathers?? -So here is the argument I repeatedly hear--dinosaurs aren't birds (technically true but only because of a logical reversal) so there can't be feather fossils on some dinosaurs (not true). - No, I never meant that; besides, I can't discuss that because I am not a scientist I am sorry if I ever gave the impression that I think that ALL dinosaurs should have feathers; in fact, I have a hard time with any restoration of feathers on dinosaurs beyond the coelurosaurs; I would prefer if feathers were only shown on taxa that have actually been found with feathers, and very closely related species (for example--Beipaiosaurus is a therizinosaurid found with feathers, so it isn't beyond the realm of reason that other therizinosaurs would have some feathers). But pretty much any dinosaur beyond the tyrannosaurs (and that's pushing it) including tetanuran theropods, and any sauropods or ornithischians, should not have feathers as far as I'm concerned--unless someone finds convincing feather fossils that stand up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 7, 2008 22:35:50 GMT
in fact, that's why I discuss ^^ I guess there were feathered dinosaurs, but not all, only certain species. "Looks like this is the end feathered dinosaur debate!? " who said I'm done? j/k , I still have some doubts, but I kind of accept them.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on May 8, 2008 8:04:04 GMT
"But pretty much any dinosaur beyond the tyrannosaurs (and that's pushing it) including tetanuran theropods, and any sauropods or ornithischians, should not have feathers as far as I'm concerned--unless someone finds convincing feather fossils that stand up to scrutiny."
I don't know that I feel the tyrannosaurs are pushing it, but with them still sitting on a potentially sliding clade....I guess so far it all depends on where you want to clump Dilong paradoxus.
As for anything that is NOT a Maniraptora having feathers ?
I generally agree that those should not be represented as feathered.....THOUGH, to be scientific about it, It will really depends on where and when feathers evolved will be what it takes to shed light on just who may have had feathers, as expecting to find preserved integument material is simply rare.
Wed have alot of dinosaurs with no skin at all if we waited for proof of what they were covered with before reconstructing them. Paleo-art HAS to be allowed to be imaginitive....just HOW imaginitive depends on how much the specific artist wishes to follow everything from known paths of evolution and "natural laws" to common sense.
As for the Psittacosaurs bristles ? So far, they are still just that, bristles. Thos bristles could be related to feathers...who knows...they could also be elongated scales or heck, even something as crazy and unexpected as venomous spines or something.
IMHO, Its no ecuse to make a Psittacosaurs look like some kind of avian poodle.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 8, 2008 8:09:55 GMT
Looks like this is the end feathered dinosaur debate!? J/K - we all know Pilty has yet to come to his senses. ;D --but indeed I am the Voice of God and Truth calling out of the wilderness and decrying the abominable "feathered dinosaur" heresies of the false prophets of Liaoning ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 8, 2008 13:39:08 GMT
Looks like this is the end feathered dinosaur debate!? J/K - we all know Pilty has yet to come to his senses. ;D --but indeed I am the Voice of God and Truth calling out of the wilderness and decrying the abominable "feathered dinosaur" heresies of the false prophets of Liaoning ;D But since many people decry 'god' as nothing more than a myth or make-believe anyway, you are the voice of nothing, the truth of make-believe, and therefore decry nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 8, 2008 13:43:05 GMT
--but indeed I am the Voice of God and Truth calling out of the wilderness and decrying the abominable "feathered dinosaur" heresies of the false prophets of Liaoning ;D But since many people decry 'god' as nothing more than a myth or make-believe anyway, you are the voice of nothing, the truth of make-believe, and therefore decry nothing. Pure poetry to my ears
|
|
brad
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brad on May 21, 2008 17:15:12 GMT
But indeed the claim has been made. I've personally seen pictures of feathered parasaurolophuses. That this flies against the evidence of hadrosaur scales has apparently not stopped anyone. Feathered allosaurs and dilophosaurs I've come across too. They may be merely products of artistic license, but the books they were in were written by scientists, which would give credence to such feathers in the minds of the common reader.I have never seen these pictures. I doubt any of this is peer reviewed. Is it? If not, its mere speculation and the issue it moot. See In The Presence of Dinosaurs, a 2000 paleoart book by John Colagrande and Larry Felder. In addition to feathered Parasaurolophus and Dilophosaurus, you also get feathered Eoraptor and Coelophysis.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2008 17:36:13 GMT
But indeed the claim has been made. I've personally seen pictures of feathered parasaurolophuses. That this flies against the evidence of hadrosaur scales has apparently not stopped anyone. Feathered allosaurs and dilophosaurs I've come across too. They may be merely products of artistic license, but the books they were in were written by scientists, which would give credence to such feathers in the minds of the common reader.I have never seen these pictures. I doubt any of this is peer reviewed. Is it? If not, its mere speculation and the issue it moot. See In The Presence of Dinosaurs, a 2000 paleoart book by John Colagrande and Larry Felder. In addition to feathered Parasaurolophus and Dilophosaurus, you also get feathered Eoraptor and Coelophysis. Well, of course one of the main problems is that most books are not peer reviewed per se. Hence the issues that have stemmed from authors naming taxa in books that are edited (as opposed to peer reviewed papers). This is why books are frequently used as a first avenue to put out whatever crazy hypotheses (including crazy reconstructions) someone came up with, since proper publication won't happen for them.
|
|
|
Post by joshwennes on May 21, 2008 19:47:39 GMT
The one way I look at this, in paleo art, is the same way I look at the scientific side of things(just a precursor so everyone knows, I'm a college student studying paleontology, not an expert......yet:D ). The field of paleontology depends upon one thing, and that is bold claims brought forth by imaginative people. Without this, the science, and the art, would be dead. People have made these claims since the dawn of time. Without it, we'd still consider Iguanodon to be a horn-nosed quadriped, or sauropods as swamp dwellers, or that dinosaurs were reptiles, with no connection to birds. People have made careers off of making these claims. Jack Horner(Maiasaura) Bob Bakker(Dinosaur Heresies), among others have proven that we need these in order to advance our thinking and understanding of the incredible creatures we all are here to love.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2008 19:56:47 GMT
The one way I look at this, in paleo art, is the same way I look at the scientific side of things(just a precursor so everyone knows, I'm a college student studying paleontology, not an expert......yet:D ). The field of paleontology depends upon one thing, and that is bold claims brought forth by imaginative people. Without this, the science, and the art, would be dead. People have made these claims since the dawn of time. Without it, we'd still consider Iguanodon to be a horn-nosed quadriped, or sauropods as swamp dwellers, or that dinosaurs were reptiles, with no connection to birds. People have made careers off of making these claims. Jack Horner(Maiasaura) Bob Bakker(Dinosaur Heresies), among others have proven that we need these in order to advance our thinking and understanding of the incredible creatures we all are here to love. Ah, but those major steps forward were based on evidence--we have fossil skin of at least a few hadrosaur species, none of which show any feathery tendencies; this is true of tetanuran dinosaurs as well. Also, getting your schooling ain't the same as being an expert--most scientists shy from that particular word, because it implies that they know everything there is to know and can learn nothing from anyone else. Specialist? Yes. Knowledgeable in the field of...? Yes. Expert? Suspect at best.
|
|
|
Post by joshwennes on May 21, 2008 21:26:37 GMT
The one way I look at this, in paleo art, is the same way I look at the scientific side of things(just a precursor so everyone knows, I'm a college student studying paleontology, not an expert......yet:D ). The field of paleontology depends upon one thing, and that is bold claims brought forth by imaginative people. Without this, the science, and the art, would be dead. People have made these claims since the dawn of time. Without it, we'd still consider Iguanodon to be a horn-nosed quadriped, or sauropods as swamp dwellers, or that dinosaurs were reptiles, with no connection to birds. People have made careers off of making these claims. Jack Horner(Maiasaura) Bob Bakker(Dinosaur Heresies), among others have proven that we need these in order to advance our thinking and understanding of the incredible creatures we all are here to love. Ah, but those major steps forward were based on evidence--we have fossil skin of at least a few hadrosaur species, none of which show any feathery tendencies; this is true of tetanuran dinosaurs as well. Also, getting your schooling ain't the same as being an expert--most scientists shy from that particular word, because it implies that they know everything there is to know and can learn nothing from anyone else. Specialist? Yes. Knowledgeable in the field of...? Yes. Expert? Suspect at best. First off, I never implied I was an expert. Probably could have used that in a different context. My fault though. And, while those steps were based in evidence, we have evidence of some dinosaurs having feathers, or protofeathers, whatever you want to call them. We have found many dinosaurs with incomplete skeletons, and made conclusions about what animal they were and how the behaved without that evidence. Couple of examples, Barosaurus lentus. Sauropod, which we have recovered a lot of, but no skull. It is referred to as having a skull similar to Diplodocus, as are a lot of different "Diplodocids", without the presence of a skull. That is inferred. Granted, it has been shown to be pretty darn accurate, but it is an assumption. The other big one that I can think of would have to be Tyrannosaurus Rex. The early drawings, sculptures, reconstructions, and the early thought was that it had 3 fingers. No forelimb material had ever been recovered until that point. It was an assumption that was made, and proven wrong. There was no evidence that T-Rex had 3 fingers, they assumed it had 3 because it was similar to Megalosaurus. Megalosaurus is another one, how many species of dinos are still under that moniker? Everyone assumed that if it was a large meat eater, it was Megalosaurus. Between those examples, we can see that Paleontology, while a science, is still a bunch of grey area. That's one thing I love about it, there's room for conjecture and interpretation. Truth being, we'll never know 100%, but we give it our best guess. Upon looking at this, I see that I have given a couple of examples that seem to counter my own thought. My mistake here. Sure there are assumptions that are made without evidence, and with the T Rex and Megalosaurus, we were wrong, but the Barosaurus (or any diplodocid) is yet to be uncovered.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2008 21:40:38 GMT
Ah, but those major steps forward were based on evidence--we have fossil skin of at least a few hadrosaur species, none of which show any feathery tendencies; this is true of tetanuran dinosaurs as well. Also, getting your schooling ain't the same as being an expert--most scientists shy from that particular word, because it implies that they know everything there is to know and can learn nothing from anyone else. Specialist? Yes. Knowledgeable in the field of...? Yes. Expert? Suspect at best. First off, I never implied I was an expert. Probably could have used that in a different context. My fault though. And, while those steps were based in evidence, we have evidence of some dinosaurs having feathers, or protofeathers, whatever you want to call them. We have found many dinosaurs with incomplete skeletons, and made conclusions about what animal they were and how the behaved without that evidence. Couple of examples, Barosaurus lentus. Sauropod, which we have recovered a lot of, but no skull. It is referred to as having a skull similar to Diplodocus, as are a lot of different "Diplodocids", without the presence of a skull. That is inferred. Granted, it has been shown to be pretty darn accurate, but it is an assumption. The other big one that I can think of would have to be Tyrannosaurus Rex. The early drawings, sculptures, reconstructions, and the early thought was that it had 3 fingers. No forelimb material had ever been recovered until that point. It was an assumption that was made, and proven wrong. There was no evidence that T-Rex had 3 fingers, they assumed it had 3 because it was similar to Megalosaurus. Megalosaurus is another one, how many species of dinos are still under that moniker? Everyone assumed that if it was a large meat eater, it was Megalosaurus. Between those examples, we can see that Paleontology, while a science, is still a bunch of grey area. That's one thing I love about it, there's room for conjecture and interpretation. Truth being, we'll never know 100%, but we give it our best guess. Upon looking at this, I see that I have given a couple of examples that seem to counter my own thought. My mistake here. Sure there are assumptions that are made without evidence, and with the T Rex and Megalosaurus, we were wrong, but the Barosaurus (or any diplodocid) is yet to be uncovered. So is it right to make wild conjectures that go against available evidence? As I said, there are several examples of hadrosaur skin, from different areas, none of which show feathers, ergo, making the assumption that some had feathers is going intentionally against the available evidence, which is entirely not scientific. Claiming that T rex had three fingers, though, was based on the scientific knowledge of the time--all known theropod arms had three digits, so it would be logical to assume that other theropods for which evidence is unknown would also have three digits. The same goes for the sauropods with missing heads--they are generally assigned to their taxonomic placements based on skeletal features that resemble known sauropods; until evidence is presented otherwise, the assumption based on evidence would lead to the speculation that the head should be similar to assumed relatives (yes, there is a lot of assuming going on here--welcome to science with limited available evidence). So what does this do for feathers and artistic portrayals? Essentially, trying to extrapolate feathers to any non-maniraptoran dinosaur (Dilong is a big ??) is on very shaky ground at best, because no non-maniraptoran has definitely been found with feathers, but several have been found with integument other than feathers. It is one thing for the artists to admit to wild speculation, but I think the truly egregious error is when those artists try to elevate their science fiction into science fact, which only serves to confuse. And while you didn't claim to be an expert, you qualified that with a 'yet'. I recommend the movie High Fidelity for a discussion of the implications of that one little word.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 22, 2008 13:46:06 GMT
|
|
brad
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brad on May 22, 2008 17:42:02 GMT
[Well, of course one of the main problems is that most books are not peer reviewed per se. Hence the issues that have stemmed from authors naming taxa in books that are edited (as opposed to peer reviewed papers). This is why books are frequently used as a first avenue to put out whatever crazy hypotheses (including crazy reconstructions) someone came up with, since proper publication won't happen for them. How do you suggest a artist find a "proper" peer-reviewed outlet for publishing his palaeo paintings? Book publishers have the demand and the money for big, colourful pictures of dinosaurs restored as living animals. Scientific journals, not so much. There have probably been few examples of palaeoart ever made that you could consider "peer-reviewed." Does working under the close supervision of just one scientist count? Felder thanks a lot of reputable palaeoartists and palaeontologists in his acknowledgments, so he may have talked to some of them about which animals to feather. Jack Horner wrote the foreword to In The Presence of Dinosaurs, I wonder what his opinion was on the fuzzy hadrosaur babies.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 22, 2008 19:16:31 GMT
[Well, of course one of the main problems is that most books are not peer reviewed per se. Hence the issues that have stemmed from authors naming taxa in books that are edited (as opposed to peer reviewed papers). This is why books are frequently used as a first avenue to put out whatever crazy hypotheses (including crazy reconstructions) someone came up with, since proper publication won't happen for them. How do you suggest a artist find a "proper" peer-reviewed outlet for publishing his palaeo paintings? Book publishers have the demand and the money for big, colourful pictures of dinosaurs restored as living animals. Scientific journals, not so much. There have probably been few examples of palaeoart ever made that you could consider "peer-reviewed." Does working under the close supervision of just one scientist count? Felder thanks a lot of reputable palaeoartists and palaeontologists in his acknowledgments, so he may have talked to some of them about which animals to feather. Jack Horner wrote the foreword to In The Presence of Dinosaurs, I wonder what his opinion was on the fuzzy hadrosaur babies. As I mentioned, the bigger issue is peer-review vs books for taxonomic problems. And it is "easier" to publish a book than slog through the peer-review process, on any subject. And there are more published reconstructions out there than many people realize (although not enough). A couple examples I have around are the Werdelin & Solounias Hyena volume, with reconstructions (they aren't really that good) and pretty much any paper involving Mauricio Anton (which are terrific--as an aside I have a signed book from him!). If I recall correctly, the 2005 Sereno paper had a reconstruction of the Spinosaurus head. And many paleo-fish articles also have reconstructions--they may not be works of art, but I would take one of those B&W line drawings on my wall any day over one of Luis Rey's colourful turkeys (unless, I suppose, I wanted a picture of an actual turkey. I'm looking at you Tomhet ;D!).
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 22, 2008 19:29:12 GMT
[Well, of course one of the main problems is that most books are not peer reviewed per se. Hence the issues that have stemmed from authors naming taxa in books that are edited (as opposed to peer reviewed papers). This is why books are frequently used as a first avenue to put out whatever crazy hypotheses (including crazy reconstructions) someone came up with, since proper publication won't happen for them. How do you suggest a artist find a "proper" peer-reviewed outlet for publishing his palaeo paintings? Book publishers have the demand and the money for big, colourful pictures of dinosaurs restored as living animals. Scientific journals, not so much. There have probably been few examples of palaeoart ever made that you could consider "peer-reviewed." Does working under the close supervision of just one scientist count? Felder thanks a lot of reputable palaeoartists and palaeontologists in his acknowledgments, so he may have talked to some of them about which animals to feather. Jack Horner wrote the foreword to In The Presence of Dinosaurs, I wonder what his opinion was on the fuzzy hadrosaur babies. ow do you suggest a artist find a "proper" peer-reviewed outlet for publishing his palaeo paintings?They shouldn't have to. And thats sort of the point, palaeoart shouldn't necessarily have to, and often doesn't reflect the scientific peer-reviewed scientific consensus. Thus, it shouldn't be used as evidence for the scientific consensus. Hence my main point which you responded to in the first place stands, as I sais "its mere speculation and the issue it moot." But indeed the claim has been made. I've personally seen pictures of feathered parasaurolophuses. That this flies against the evidence of hadrosaur scales has apparently not stopped anyone. Feathered allosaurs and dilophosaurs I've come across too. They may be merely products of artistic license, but the books they were in were written by scientists, which would give credence to such feathers in the minds of the common reader.I have never seen these pictures. I doubt any of this is peer reviewed. Is it? If not, its mere speculation and the issue it moot. See In The Presence of Dinosaurs, a 2000 paleoart book by John Colagrande and Larry Felder. In addition to feathered Parasaurolophus and Dilophosaurus, you also get feathered Eoraptor and Coelophysis.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 22, 2008 19:43:09 GMT
Also, the reference you quoted, 'In The Presence of Dinosaurs' also shows restorations of plesiosaurs which go against the consensus. In one picture a baby plesiosaur is waddling across the sand turtle-style (unlikely, plesiosaurs gave birth to live young) and in another the long neck of an elasmosaur is shooting high up out of the water (unlikely/impossible). Again illustrating the fact that artists have the freeeeeedommm to do what they want.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 22, 2008 19:54:00 GMT
Also, the reference you quoted, 'In The Presence of Dinosaurs' also shows restorations of plesiosaurs which go against the consensus. In one picture a baby plesiosaur is waddling across the sand turtle-style (unlikely, plesiosaurs gave birth to live young) and in another the long neck of an elasmosaur is shooting high up out of the water (unlikely/impossible). Again illustrating the fact that artists have the freeeeeedommm to do what they want. But they should be more responsible about distinguishing between artistic license and scientific accuracy. Despite dragging his name in a lot, I pick on Luis Rey as much for his wildly bizarre illustrations as his insistence on his bases in scientific understanding, despite all evidence to the contrary. The problem is that someone sees those depictions, hear the he claims a high degree of scientific accuracy, and assume that his work reflects scientific consensus. And speaking of seal/plesiosaurs--does anyone know if the Sternberg Museum in Kansas still has the plesioisaurs dragging out on the beach? It is a full scale diorama, and it just looks intuitively wrong. But what's wrong with periscope reptiles? ;D
|
|