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
What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you.
Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,480 Views)
Similis
Member Avatar


Dr. Hax
Oct 15 2013, 01:36 AM
I personally think the idea of any feathered dinosaur that's not a Coelorosaur, whether theropod or not, to be impractical and pointless. I can accept that coelorosaurs, at least 80% percent of them


Where does your 20% of scaly coelurosaurs come from? That is a gigantic number for a clade that we know to be extremely likely to represent no bald genera.


Dr. Hax
Oct 15 2013, 01:36 AM
but due to the fact that most other dinosaurs, including hadrosaurs, ceratopsians, sauropods and pachycephalosaurs, to be impractical and highly unlikely, due to the fact that non-coelorosaur dinosaursn were closer to crocodiles than birds. (Correct me if I'm wrong)


Due to fact what, excuse me? I don't understand the first part other than that some of these animals were indeed found with other integument than just scales. And no, not a single dinosaur clade is 'closer' to crocodiles than to birds. Just as lemurs are closer to humans than they are to the guinea pigs. Clades don't lie. Dinosaur is always closer to a dinosaur than it is to a crocodile, otherwise the whole cladistics would be not required, we'd just group animals according to what we think they resembled, not to their evolutionary lines.

Dr. Hax
Oct 15 2013, 01:36 AM
Unless you count quills on pachycephalosaurs and ceratopsids (Which they might not have even had outside of Psittaccosaurus), the spikes running along the tails of diplodocids, and the scales that all dinosaurs had (Which technically are a specially adapted/evolved form of feathers), there's no logically valid reason why non-coelorosaurs may have had feathers. Then again, I'm just restating the obvious.


Pegomastax, Psittacosaurus, Tianyulong, unnamed siberian euornithopod. Look them up, the ornithopod you'll find in a link I posted in the topic with paleo info. Then please, do the research before advocating something that is not the case, because it'd really save me time writing all this everytime. You did restate the obvious - you didn't do your research and try to sneak wrong info as a valid argument :P
Edited by Similis, Oct 15 2013, 01:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TyrantTR
Member Avatar


MrGorsh
Oct 15 2013, 01:09 AM
TyrantTR
Oct 14 2013, 05:24 PM
Given newer understanding of the evolution of feathers, it is starting to become apparent that it may be the case that nearly all theropods have a common feathered ancestor. And the scales we have found would then be unformed feathers. Be that the case, and yes the jury is still out but that is the direction we are heading in, then it is possible and even seen in the fossil record, that feathered animals can become scaled. With scaled of-course meaning that they are simply unformed feathers.

Now does that mean T. rex was scaled? Absolutely not, but it means there still could be reason to scale it. I personally do not buy a scaly rex, given that it is from a long long lineage of pretty much exclusively feathered coelurosaurs, but I cannot deny the possibility, given the recent evidence, that it could have developed scales. However it is worth noting that given its phylogenetic background, the feathered option has become the least speculative. Oddly enough scales are no longer the conservative option, which is a shifting of the poles from how it was even a couple years ago.
I, so far, prefer not to follow the conclusion of the completely feathered theropod/dinosaurian/metatarsalian ancestor - even if it makes much sense and gets me hyped up. Yet. When something more is written about it being valid, I'll probably be extremely happy. Though, I was referring mainly to the coelurosaurian branch of theropods - we actually don't get to see a single line of them that gains scales over the feathers, thus my conclusion of the feather development rather than going scaley.

If we are to pick another clade... well, once more info on the siberian ornithopod is out, it'll be apparent that these animals were going more scaly the bigger they were, due to factors unknown. After all the hadrosaur integument we know is purely scaly with some scutes (though still not rough - small smooth scales).

In the end I'm still looking forward to seeing some feather evidence material from T.rex just so there is undeniable proof of it having them (as if the clear evolutionary line wasn't enough, geez), but I guess if it's not going to be whole animal imprint - people will say that feathers were only present on a tiny patch of skin.
Now there is a couple things I will take issue with here.

For one I am not entirely sure fluff in ornithischians is linked to size. For example Psittacosaurus has significantly less quills than the other known fluffy ornithischians and it certainly isn't by any means a large animal, probably not much smaller or bigger than the new fluffy guy. Simply put we don't have the data to make that assumption.

I feel being as strictly scientifically objective as possible is the best way to handle these sorts of issues. Now I have admitted to you that Tyrannosaurus rex being feathered is a likely safe bet, but I have also demonstrated the possibilities, all strictly scientifically possible, by which it might not. And this is just keeping it to the two options of scaly and feathered. It could also have been nude, bare skin is seen in some gorgosaur impressions if I recall and likely existed on tyrannosaurs to some extent. (And though a complete loss of feathers is not seen in coelurosaurs, when feathers are lost it generally turns into bare skin) This is why refrain is often pushed on attaching certainty to any one outcome. I don't look forward to any given outcome for any given dinosaur's integument. I certainly used to, but bias is often the bane of scientific objectivity, and so I stopped caring.

Now its fine to have an artistic preference, and by all means feel free to exercise it. I certainly do that as well (while also keeping a healthy open mind for possibilities) but don't confuse your bias for truths and facts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


Sure there is no certainity, but the possiblity is more than less on the feathered side and this is why I don't really view pushing towards the bald restorations as something normal. We can of course find out that these animals indeed became more bald, but they could've also been more feathered.

Guess in the end I've spent too much time on the FeatherNazi DA page. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TyrantTR
Member Avatar


MrGorsh
Oct 15 2013, 01:57 AM
Sure there is no certainity, but the possiblity is more than less on the feathered side and this is why I don't really view pushing towards the bald restorations as something normal. We can of course find out that these animals indeed became more bald, but they could've also been more feathered.

Guess in the end I've spent too much time on the FeatherNazi DA page. :P
Haha that will certainly do it.

No and for the most part I agree, there simply isn't much to suggest t. rex was bald. But we have depictions of sauropods with big inflatable pouches, ankylosaurs with fluffy beards, abelisaurs covered in a coat of feathers. These get a pass because they are speculative, and though I spose the difference is not many scaly rexes are done so in the spirit of speculation, I still do not see why they should not get a pass as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


MrGorsh
Oct 15 2013, 01:48 AM
Dr. Hax
Oct 15 2013, 01:36 AM
I personally think the idea of any feathered dinosaur that's not a Coelorosaur, whether theropod or not, to be impractical and pointless. I can accept that coelorosaurs, at least 80% percent of them


Where does your 20% of scaly coelurosaurs come from? That is a gigantic number for a clade that we know to be extremely likely to represent no bald genera.


Dr. Hax
Oct 15 2013, 01:36 AM
but due to the fact that most other dinosaurs, including hadrosaurs, ceratopsians, sauropods and pachycephalosaurs, to be impractical and highly unlikely, due to the fact that non-coelorosaur dinosaursn were closer to crocodiles than birds. (Correct me if I'm wrong)


Due to fact what, excuse me? I don't understand the first part other than that some of these animals were indeed found with other integument than just scales. And no, not a single dinosaur clade is 'closer' to crocodiles than to birds. Just as lemurs are closer to humans than they are to the guinea pigs. Clades don't lie. Dinosaur is always closer to a dinosaur than it is to a crocodile, otherwise the whole cladistics would be not required, we'd just group animals according to what we think they resembled, not to their evolutionary lines.

Dr. Hax
Oct 15 2013, 01:36 AM
Unless you count quills on pachycephalosaurs and ceratopsids (Which they might not have even had outside of Psittaccosaurus), the spikes running along the tails of diplodocids, and the scales that all dinosaurs had (Which technically are a specially adapted/evolved form of feathers), there's no logically valid reason why non-coelorosaurs may have had feathers. Then again, I'm just restating the obvious.


Pegomastax, Psittacosaurus, Tianyulong, unnamed siberian euornithopod. Look them up, the ornithopod you'll find in a link I posted in the topic with paleo info. Then please, do the research before advocating something that is not the case, because it'd really save me time writing all this everytime. You did restate the obvious - you didn't do your research and try to sneak wrong info as a valid argument :P
Alright, thanks for the new info. When i said "80%", i meant more like 95%, because I'm counting the early ones like Coelophysis and Gojirasaurus that may have been scaly. And second, i wasn't aware that other species were found with quills, because I don't really know where to find ceratopsid quills information. xD And my main point about non-coelorosaurs was that, to my knowledge, Ornithischians, Sauropods, and most theropods weren't as closely related to birds as Coelorosaurs are, so i find it unlikely that they would have feathers. I'd like to find a site where i can do some major research so i can stop making these false arguments and embarassing myself. Anyway, though I'm not really annoyed by speculative feathers on non -coelorosaurs per se, I am annoyed when paleoartists draw the feathers to look more like fur than feathers, such as this:
Posted Image
Now, i will give credit where credit is due, because this is a very beautifully-drawn illustration, there's just something really off about the feathers that bothers me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

Fur-like feathers would generally be more primitive and thus more likely to see on a dinosaur.

By the way, feathers can be quite fur-like even in avians:

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


.....I'm learning more about dinosaurs on a forum dedicated to a children's game then i would watching a documentary. xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

Well that's good, no? Knowledge is power!

Before I joined the community I was pathetically out of the know with paleontology; I'm ashamed to say I thought pterosaurs were cold-blooded. D:

You learn a lot in the community.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I think feathers for dinosaurs would have been like hair for mammals: all dinosaurs had them in some form or another (I do think many dinosaurs had scales, just that in my opinion those scales were probably modified feathers rather than true scales, similar to how rhino skin is made up of matted hair if I remember correctly).
Edited by CyborgIguana, Oct 15 2013, 05:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

CyborgIguana
Oct 15 2013, 05:29 AM
I think feathers for dinosaurs would have been like hair for mammals: all dinosaurs had them in some form or another (I do think many dinosaurs had scales, just that in my opinion those scales were probably modified feathers rather than true scales, similar to how rhino skin is made up of matted hair if I remember correctly).
Rhinos horns are made of matted hair, not their skin. xD Otherwise I'd agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


On another note, I'm annoyed by paleo-fans who still think that Quetzalcoatlus was a coastal skimmer or a vulture-like scavenger. Sure, it may have scavenged on occasion, but even when it did I think it would've been scaring Rexes away from their kills rather than trailing dying sauropods like vultures. Far more often it would've been stalking through the ferns, gobbling up unlucky titanosaur hatchlings. Those who think it was a piscivore like Pteranodon but bigger are even less forgiveable, even 30 seconds of Googling would reveal that it lived MILES from the sea or any body of water. There's no way it could've been a fish-eater.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


maybe it could have also fished like a heron if it had the chance ?
many species of storks and herons often switch between aquatic and terrestrial animals diet (and in the case of marabou they also scavenge).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I agree. It's just that saying it was exclusively a scavenger or piscivore is blatantly incorrect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral General Aladeen
Member Avatar


Posted Image

Everything about this picture.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


What is that? A four-armed monster?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply