Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Carnotaurus doesn't have scales afterall
Topic Started: Mar 2 2016, 10:10 PM (3,360 Views)
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Yeah ok, I acknowledge my analogy wasn't a perfect one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HENDRIX
Member Avatar
-retired-

stargatedalek
Mar 3 2016, 07:40 PM
CyborgIguana
Mar 3 2016, 06:25 PM
In hindsight this kind of reminds me of the whole Brian Ford "aquatic dinosaurs" incident in 2012, something that blatantly contradicts evidence but gets taken seriously by some people anyway because of how "revolutionary" it is.
I still don't think there's much in the way of contradiction. This actually brings to light quite a few points about just how little really is known of Carnotaurus integument and lends plausibility that what we're seeing could in fact be skin with larger structures between, or more likely the status quot could be right and it could be small scales.
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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HENDRIX
Member Avatar
-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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PrimevalBrony
Member Avatar
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleop
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PrimevalBrony
Member Avatar
Youtuber. Combat robotics fan

Paleop
Mar 4 2016, 11:19 AM


@PrimevalBrony: not sure it works that way, if a dinosaur had feathers it would probably have had them for life.
Not true. After all, elephant babies are very hairy, whereas adults are not too hairy at all
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

HENDRIX
Mar 4 2016, 08:39 AM
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.
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*
PrimevalBrony
Mar 4 2016, 11:50 AM
Paleop
Mar 4 2016, 11:19 AM


@PrimevalBrony: not sure it works that way, if a dinosaur had feathers it would probably have had them for life.
Not true. After all, elephant babies are very hairy, whereas adults are not too hairy at all
Neither scales nor feathers are developmentally similar to hair. Elephants are not similar to dinosaurs.
Edited by stargatedalek, Mar 4 2016, 11:55 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathius Tyra
Member Avatar
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life

PrimevalBrony
Mar 4 2016, 11:50 AM
Paleop
Mar 4 2016, 11:19 AM


@PrimevalBrony: not sure it works that way, if a dinosaur had feathers it would probably have had them for life.
Not true. After all, elephant babies are very hairy, whereas adults are not too hairy at all
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheNotFakeDK
Member Avatar
200% Authentic

PrimevalBrony
Mar 4 2016, 11:50 AM
Paleop
Mar 4 2016, 11:19 AM
@PrimevalBrony: not sure it works that way, if a dinosaur had feathers it would probably have had them for life.
Not true. After all, elephant babies are very hairy, whereas adults are not too hairy at all
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HENDRIX
Member Avatar
-retired-

stargatedalek
Mar 4 2016, 11:52 AM
HENDRIX
Mar 4 2016, 08:39 AM
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.
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.
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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


PrimevalBrony
Mar 4 2016, 08:45 AM
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
Dude, you might not like/agree with the article, but this is a bit exagerate reaction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PrimevalBrony
Member Avatar
Youtuber. Combat robotics fan

Furka
Mar 4 2016, 02:43 PM
PrimevalBrony
Mar 4 2016, 08:45 AM
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
Dude, you might not like/agree with the article, but this is a bit exagerate reaction.
Well I do suffer from a condition where all emotions are in high gear.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3