Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Carnotaurus doesn't have scales afterall | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 2 2016, 10:10 PM (3,360 Views) | |
| CyborgIguana | Mar 3 2016, 07:54 PM Post #31 |
![]() ![]()
|
Yeah ok, I acknowledge my analogy wasn't a perfect one. |
![]() |
|
| HENDRIX | Mar 4 2016, 05:39 AM Post #32 |
![]()
-retired-
![]()
|
I would actually say we know fairly much of the integument, and if Czerkas says "all over the body" in a peer reviewed paper, I believe that, rather than what some random dude like Cau is wildly speculating. And in coparison to dozens of other (related) genera, we know really A LOT about Carnotaurus integument. HOWEVER, we can not be certain about the provenance of the tubercles Czerkas described. I mean there's no way to tell for sure if they are homologous to the tubercles we see on the undersides of bird feet (making them closer to feathers), or to scales of reptiles. Yet the latter case seems more likely, since many reptiles show similar huge conical structures (think of iguanas, for example) while birds lack these. Edited by HENDRIX, Mar 4 2016, 05:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 4 2016, 08:35 AM Post #33 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
There is no "wildly speculating" going on. Looking at the photographs it is very unclear what exactly these are impressions of. This wouldn't be the first time an impression was initially taken as one thing but turned out to be another, even by a peer reviewed paper. |
![]() |
|
| HENDRIX | Mar 4 2016, 08:39 AM Post #34 |
![]()
-retired-
![]()
|
Well, to me it sounds like speculating because he hasn't looked at the real specimen. It looks all rather "Peters-esque" to me, working with pictures rather than with fossils. With the available material I can't rule out his theory completely, but there's no way to prove it either without looking at the fossil itself. And even then, it largely remains a matter of interpretation. |
![]() |
|
| PrimevalBrony | Mar 4 2016, 08:45 AM Post #35 |
|
Youtuber. Combat robotics fan
![]()
|
That article made me vomit inside. I mean specimens are known of Carnotaurus' skin from almost every part of its body. And what do the show? Scales! Not feathry Mr Fluffy-kins as Cau seems to be projecting. Now I'm not saying that no Carnotaurus had feathers. I for one agree with Holtz in that perhaps baby Carnotaurus had some protofeathers to aid in insulation |
![]() |
|
| Paleop | Mar 4 2016, 11:19 AM Post #36 |
|
Paleopterix
![]()
|
what ever happened with the fossils themselves? @PrimevalBrony: not sure it works that way, if a dinosaur had feathers it would probably have had them for life. Edited by Paleop, Mar 4 2016, 11:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| PrimevalBrony | Mar 4 2016, 11:50 AM Post #37 |
|
Youtuber. Combat robotics fan
![]()
|
Not true. After all, elephant babies are very hairy, whereas adults are not too hairy at all |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 4 2016, 11:52 AM Post #38 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
Honestly basing an assumption on photographs is still better than basing an assumption on a single line of text that could well be taken out of context. I see no proof that that quote is in reference to the wrinkled texture between the raised artifacts and not in reference to those artifacts themselves. It is entirely a matter of interpretation which is what I've been saying this entire time. *edit* Neither scales nor feathers are developmentally similar to hair. Elephants are not similar to dinosaurs. Edited by stargatedalek, Mar 4 2016, 11:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mathius Tyra | Mar 4 2016, 12:16 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life
![]()
|
hair and feather are completely different integument and there is very rare case of animal that shed their feather when growing up, one example is ostrich which do that because the adult run faster and more often than the chick and its thigh would heat up quickly. So, they get rid of the feather around their thigh for cooling system. And even if animal does losing their feather as they age, they would have bare skin replacing feather, not scales. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Mar 4 2016, 12:29 PM Post #40 |
![]() ![]()
|
From the modern world, we've so far seen no evidence that any animal can just entirely replace its type of integument as part of its growth sequence. Therefore it seems safest to assume that scaly dinosaurs were born scaly, feathered dinosaurs were born feathered, and they kept these integuments throughout their lives. |
![]() |
|
| TheNotFakeDK | Mar 4 2016, 12:29 PM Post #41 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
That's just the already existing integument being lost and/or becoming sparser, what you're suggesting is replacing one kind of integument with another kind of integument, something we don't see occurring ontogenetically in any species. It doesn't work like that, uf dinosaurs lost feathers as they grew, it would only leave the bare skin, it can't be traded out for reticulate scales. Edit: Ninja'd Edited by TheNotFakeDK, Mar 4 2016, 12:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| HENDRIX | Mar 4 2016, 01:43 PM Post #42 |
![]()
-retired-
![]()
|
Wait a second, my assumption is based on both the image AND the quote. Apparently Cau himself had not even bothered to find the quote, and neither did he study the photo properly or else he would have seen the small tubercles. The quote, in the conplete context as I provided from the link, clearly differentiates between the conical protusions (="raised artifacts") and the small tubercles inbetween, and the part "all over the body" definitely refers to the small tubercles. My argument therefore is simply that the tubercles we see in the pic are found "all over the body". The only question that remains is whether these tubercles are true scales, making feathers unlikely, or are homologous to the tubercles on bird feet, making feathers likely. Edited by HENDRIX, Mar 4 2016, 01:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Mar 4 2016, 01:57 PM Post #43 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Czerkas's paper (via that Portugese website Hendrix posted) compares the scales of Carnotaurus to those of hadrosaurs. More specifically, it compares the larger, keeled scales to those dorsal scutes seen along the backs of several hadrosaur species, being a cluster of scales which, along an evolutionary timespan, fused and enlarged. That's what the translate button tells me anyway. It's also important to note that crocodilian scales are more like the scales of birds, both genetically and structurally, than they are to those of snakes and lizards as well. And that has a lot of implications for many other debates involving dinosaur integument. Edited by Incinerox, Mar 4 2016, 01:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Furka | Mar 4 2016, 02:43 PM Post #44 |
![]() ![]()
|
Dude, you might not like/agree with the article, but this is a bit exagerate reaction. |
![]() |
|
| PrimevalBrony | Mar 4 2016, 03:08 PM Post #45 |
|
Youtuber. Combat robotics fan
![]()
|
Well I do suffer from a condition where all emotions are in high gear. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups













