Are featherless 'raptors' actually wrong?

[ningishzida]

Many people are dismayed that their 'raptor' models, and thier depiction in the media are incorrect now because of the discovery of feathers depicted on a few similar species.

But is this correct? If elephants went extinct 10,000 years ago, yet if we still found wooly mammoths carcasses in Siberia, 'scientists' would come to the conclusion that every 'elephant/mammoth type animal would also be covered with hair, and of course, we know this is wrong.

The same is probably true of the so-called 'feathered' dinosaurs. The feathers are insulation, and in hot torpical climates, similar dinosaurs that would have feathers in cool climates, may not have had them in very hot climates.

This is probably something we will never know for sure, but no one can say 'scaly' raptors are inaccurate, save for the specific depiction of one that we know had feathers from the fossil evidence.

[Dinotoyforum]

You are not comparing like with like. Even in hot climes, dromeosaur-sized mammals have hair and birds have feathers. Climate is just one factor, size is another, and feathers have more than one function. sure, It's possible that some raptors may have lost feathers or never had them, but thats not a parsimonious interpretation of the data we have.

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

Feathers in hot climates don't just hold heat in--- They also protect the animal's skin, and they can trap a layer of cooled air close to the skin, thus keeping the animal cooler. And what about road runners? They have feathers-- And they live in very hot climates.

And if we don't know a single species of dromeosaur had feathers, why MUST it have scales until further notice?



And in your example of elephants, well, they may not be "whooly", but the still do have hair.

[sid]

Some species (probably only the smaller ones) actually had feathers...But many other species were probably bald or even scaly.


Cladistic says otherwise,but we all know cladistic studies are at least 90% crap ;D

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

^^ So you are saying they evolved scales, then feathers took place of scales, and then they evolved scales again? That isn't possible sid.

[kuni]

Cladistics are only a "best guess" when it comes to poorly-known paleontological groups....but it still trumps wishful thinking, sid!

Ning, size:volume ratios do very different things with large animals than with small.

Just as an interesting note, I was a lot less thrilled with feathered raptors aesthetically until I saw Dinosaur Planet. While it would be nice if those raptors had larger wing feathers, I really think that the feathers make them look a lot more like real animals than when they had scales -- there are a number of weird morphological quirks that make a lot more sense when you add feathers.

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

^^ But dinosaur planet was full of other problems. Most notably the grass the iguanadon were chewing on.

[sid]

Jan 25, 2009 18:33:30 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

^^ So you are saying they evolved scales, then feathers took place of scales, and then they evolved scales again? That isn't possible sid.

Why not?

The famous Juravenator (a compsognatid) had SCALES,while Sinosauropteryx (another compy) had (proto) feathers...Why the same thing could have not been happened in Dromeosaurids? After all the notion that ALL Raptors were covered in feathers is just a guess,an hypotesis based on a bunch of fossils (Microraptor,Sinornithosaurus and such) which CLEARLY don't give us a complete and reasonable view of the evolution of feathers and scales in Dromies...


...Sigh,the problem with paleontology (and archeology,i must add) is that scientists like to jump to conclusions,tryin' so hard to validate their theories even if said theories are based on lil' fragments and such...


I know that sometimes a broken vertebra and a little footprint is all we have to study a certain animal,but,geez...At least try to not make your hypotesis sounds like a dogmatic truth!

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

Jan 25, 2009 21:52:47 GMT sid said:

Jan 25, 2009 18:33:30 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

^^ So you are saying they evolved scales, then feathers took place of scales, and then they evolved scales again? That isn't possible sid.

Why not?

The famous Juravenator (a compsognatid) had SCALES,while Sinosauropteryx (another compy) had (proto) feathers...Why the same thing could have not been happened in Dromeosaurids? After all the notion that ALL Raptors were covered in feathers is just a guess,an hypotesis based on a bunch of fossils (Microraptor,Sinornithosaurus and such) which CLEARLY don't give us a complete and reasonable view of the evolution of feathers and scales in Dromies...


...Sigh,the problem with paleontology (and archeology,i must add) is that scientists like to jump to conclusions,tryin' so hard to validate their theories even if said theories are based on lil' fragments and such...


I know that sometimes a broken vertebra and a little footprint is all we have to study a certain animal,but,geez...At least try to not make your hypotesis sounds like a dogmatic truth!

Because it is not possible. If evolution gets rid of a certian feature, you can never re-evolve it the same way it was when it was lost.

And I don't think anybody is saying they were all completely covered in fluff. I wouldn't be surprised if utahraptor only had some big feathers on the arms and just a very thin layer of fuzz on the back, kind of like elephants (except with hair, not feathers!)


"That famous jeravenator" with scales-- It was only a small patch of scales found. It could have come from a foot, the snout, the belly--- While the rest could have had some feathers.

And I ask you again-- If a dromeosaurid is found with no skin imprints, why does it HAVE to be scaly until proved otherwise?

[kuni]

It's not dogmatic truth, it's scientific truth, it's the hypothesis that currently has the most support based on the evidence available. Since it's paleontology and not something experimentally verifiable (usually), this means it's a little less solid than some other areas of science, but it's still our best guess.

Besides, you're still dodging your own reason....that a fondness for Jurassic Park is behind your argument, not fossil evidence!

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

But we all know that raptors held their hands like people do. And they had short and bendy tails. And that they have superman jumping and strength. And that they can open doors, and climb over big fences with spikes at the top. Right sid? And....


;D

[kuni]

Jan 25, 2009 22:20:34 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

And I ask you again-- If a dromeosaurid is found with no skin imprints, why does it HAVE to be scaly until proved otherwise?

Based on the evidence we have so far, this group is feathered until proven otherwise - while it's POSSIBLE (barely) that some had scales and there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the group, the fact we have feathers all over the Dromaeosauridae phylogeny makes it very, very, very likely that they had feathers, fuzz, or maybe lightly-fuzzy bare skin in rare cases, but scales are mostly out.

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

Jan 25, 2009 22:24:14 GMT kuni said:

Jan 25, 2009 22:20:34 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

And I ask you again-- If a dromeosaurid is found with no skin imprints, why does it HAVE to be scaly until proved otherwise?

Based on the evidence we have so far, this group is feathered until proven otherwise - while it's POSSIBLE (barely) that some had scales and there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the group, the fact we have feathers all over the Dromaeosauridae phylogeny makes it very, very, very likely that they had feathers, fuzz, or maybe lightly-fuzzy bare skin in rare cases, but scales are mostly out.

That's basically what I said....



So sid. It seems you have accepted that microraptor had feathers. ;D I remember when you used to think it didn't ;D

[Dinotoyforum]

"at this point,it's just my aestethic view of dinosaurs that feels somewhat offended by the possibility of "turkeyraptors" - Sid, 2008.

;D

[kuni]

Ouch, references!

[sid]

Jan 25, 2009 22:59:55 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

"at this point,it's just my aestethic view of dinosaurs that feels somewhat offended by the possibility of "turkeyraptors" - Sid, 2008.

;D

Ouch! indeed ;D

Eh eh...You're right,buddy,probably it's just my aesthetic view that somewhat denies those freaky advanced Dromeosaurids (but i still don't completely deny my view of the problem,nor my rants about modern paleontology )

Anyway...


(ominous music starts slowly...)

THEY THOUGHT THE WAR WAS OVER

(...Then increases...)

BUT THEY WERE WRONG

(...And suddenly it explodes,complete with pseudo-epic chorus a la "Matrix" and pounding percussions)

THIS JANUARY

SCALES AND FEATHERS WILL COLLIDE ONE LAST TIME

AND ONLY ONE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL!!!


(a chicken cluck is heard,immediately replaced by the majestic roar of the T.rex)


...The war is NOT over yet.


- coming soon on the big screen -



...


...


;D ;D


Sorry,i couldn't resist ;D ;D ;D

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

;D Good one sid. ;D

[tetonbabydoll]

Jan 25, 2009 19:01:56 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

^^ But dinosaur planet was full of other problems. Most notably the grass the iguanadon were chewing on.

I had this argument with a friend a few years ago, about there being no grass around back then. We googled the history of grass, and found several articles stating that new evidence supports the appearance of grass during the dino's reign. Has anyone else heard that?

I know I am going to regret asking this, and will probably get several pokes, but:

Regarding feathered dinos....Outside of China, are there any fossilized dino feathers? I know archeopteryx and other prehistoric birds have them, but I have been wondering. I know, its never good when I do that...

So, the first archeopteryx did not have evidence of feathers, right? or at least some did and some did not. So, fossilization seems to be pretty rare and hit or miss. But all the small dinos coming out of China have very well preserved covering almost every time....? Now, I had heard on a Nat Geo special that this was because the conditions in this area were especially perfect for preserving the feathers yadda yadda. Ok. but archeopteryx was not in China, right? and we still have those feathers. And, I assume, other birds as well. But here in the States, I have not heard of any dino having preserved feathers. Why? Do they find feather preservation on the birds here?

Also, many illustrators now put feathers on all small--or not so small--dinos willy nilly. Like ceolophisis sp? We have hundreds of remains over there in Ghost Ranch, right? But not one shred of evidence for feathers. Even at a hit or miss thing, surely in a site like that, SOME feathers should have been preserved? To me, that is a no in the did they have feathers area. So I guess I am curious about the high level of pristine preservation, or regularity of preservation of feathers on dinos from China. It seems..disproportionate to me that every critter found has the feathers there, where elsewhere, even in known birds, it is much more hit or miss. Does any of that make sense?

[Ajax]

Jan 27, 2009 21:08:48 GMT @tetonbabydoll said:

Jan 25, 2009 19:01:56 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

^^ But dinosaur planet was full of other problems. Most notably the grass the iguanadon were chewing on.

I had this argument with a friend a few years ago, about there being no grass around back then. We googled the history of grass, and found several articles stating that new evidence supports the appearance of grass during the dino's reign. Has anyone else heard that?

I know I am going to regret asking this, and will probably get several pokes, but:

Regarding feathered dinos....Outside of China, are there any fossilized dino feathers? I know archeopteryx and other prehistoric birds have them, but I have been wondering. I know, its never good when I do that...

So, the first archeopteryx did not have evidence of feathers, right? or at least some did and some did not. So, fossilization seems to be pretty rare and hit or miss. But all the small dinos coming out of China have very well preserved covering almost every time....? Now, I had heard on a Nat Geo special that this was because the conditions in this area were especially perfect for preserving the feathers yadda yadda. Ok. but archeopteryx was not in China, right? and we still have those feathers. And, I assume, other birds as well. But here in the States, I have not heard of any dino having preserved feathers. Why? Do they find feather preservation on the birds here?

Also, many illustrators now put feathers on all small--or not so small--dinos willy nilly. Like ceolophisis sp? We have hundreds of remains over there in Ghost Ranch, right? But not one shred of evidence for feathers. Even at a hit or miss thing, surely in a site like that, SOME feathers should have been preserved? To me, that is a no in the did they have feathers area. So I guess I am curious about the high level of pristine preservation, or regularity of preservation of feathers on dinos from China. It seems..disproportionate to me that every critter found has the feathers there, where elsewhere, even in known birds, it is much more hit or miss. Does any of that make sense?

No Teton, It makes no sense. Go to bed. ;D J/K I think it makes perfect sense, and i also believe there would have been certain types of grass during the dino days. Its a joke when people say 'There was defiantly No grass', (we learn new things everyday)

[tetonbabydoll]

I am not tired, it is only 3pm. That is probably the problem, I am alert and thinking, and no good has ever come from that. I just want to know if the birds etc have their feathers here, and if so, why no dinos?