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 (256,444 Views)
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Technically all we know is that abelisaurs had scaly sides, we don't have any impressions from the head or lower legs, so those areas could've been feathered (though I admit I am skeptical of feathers on abelisaurs).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdant Gregor
Member Avatar


CyborgIguana
Nov 17 2013, 10:42 PM
Technically all we know is that abelisaurs had scaly sides, we don't have any impressions from the head or lower legs, so those areas could've been feathered (though I admit I am skeptical of feathers on abelisaurs).
I believe that we had scale impressions of the head of Carnotaurus, though sadly those impressions were destroyed during preparation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TyrantTR
Member Avatar


CyborgIguana
Nov 17 2013, 10:42 PM
Technically all we know is that abelisaurs had scaly sides, we don't have any impressions from the head or lower legs, so those areas could've been feathered (though I admit I am skeptical of feathers on abelisaurs).
Such selective balding would be entirely unprecedented. No bird has anything comparable, in fact the first place birds lose feathers tends to be in those parts of the body; The head, neck and the legs.
Its not just a matter of saying "these areas aren't preserved, there could be feathers there" the argument needs to make sense biologically and if this is the reasoning for feathers on carnotaurus, it doesn't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


Dr. Hax
Nov 17 2013, 10:23 PM
Quote:
 
Whatever debate there used to be about feathered theropods, it's over. They had feathers

He seems to be ignorant of the fact that only fossils of coelorosaurs and an unnamed megalosaur ancestor have officially preserved feathers, and it's debatable whether or not the rest of the theropod group (Including Spinosaurs, Carnosaurs, and Ceratosaurs) had feathers. So no, it is not undeniable that all theropods had feathers. Not to mention the scales found on Carnotaurus. Second, he says uses ancestory as evidence, which is fine, but here's the argument he made:
Quote:
 
Only a few years ago, scientists thought that the ornithischians had naked skin, but that changed in 2009 when a tiny fuzzy ornithischian called Tianyulong was announced. Here's why this is important for sauropods: if theropods and ornithischians both had protofeathers

You heard that right, he used solely Tianyulong and NO OTHER ANCESTORS as backup for his argument. If he pointed out more than one genus, that would be fine, but no, he literally used a single solitary species as evidence for it. For reference, he was bringing ornithischians into the equasion because he was trying to support ornithischian ancestors as evidence for his theory, because ornithischians are second closest relatives to sauropods, next to theropods, but according to him, "All theropods were feathered, but that's not good enough evidence". If you have a defense for this guy, I'd like to hear it, but for me, it doesn't convince me that sauropods had feathers at all.
So you say that >feathered theropods< didn't have feathers, because scaly theropods were found with scales? Wut. He didn't say all theropods were feathered, but made a reference to the lizardraptors from JP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilophosaurus#Ichnology
^also, this is kind of interesting.

All in all I think you exaggerated a lot and should read more carefully when approaching subjects that are 'sensitive' area for you, ergo, feathered theropods being feathered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Iben
Member Avatar
There'll be no foot-walking! Just air-flying!

MarxRaptor
Nov 17 2013, 10:40 PM
Dr. Hax
Nov 17 2013, 10:23 PM
Quote:
 
Whatever debate there used to be about feathered theropods, it's over. They had feathers

He seems to be ignorant of the fact that only fossils of coelorosaurs and an unnamed megalosaur ancestor have officially preserved feathers, and it's debatable whether or not the rest of the theropod group (Including Spinosaurs, Carnosaurs, and Ceratosaurs) had feathers. So no, it is not undeniable that all theropods had feathers. Not to mention the scales found on Carnotaurus.
Actually Abelisaurids are know not to have had feathers, so this guy is clearly a pseudoscientific crank for proclaiming it beyond debate that all theropods were feathered.
Man you're quick to judge aren't you ? Everything is either black or white, nothing in between.

Two things to keep in mind. First, the WWD site is meant for a bigger public than just palaeontological experts, it's meant for normal people as well, to get them interested. This brings me to the second point, if someone says all mammals have fur to a group of people who don't have a big knowledge about biology , I wouldn't see you calling that person a pseudoscientific crank. You'd see that as just a normal way of educating people. Simplify it first, not every single detail should be addressed. There's nothing wrong with that. It was used in your education as well, remember ? And it's still being used.

And to be honest (not directed at you alone ), often it's people who lack a lot of biological knowledge to start with ( don't get me started on palaeontological knowledge ) that oppose feathers the most. And then they claim that palaeontologists don't know what they're doing. I'd rather believe someone who has a decent amount of knowledge, so they don't make mistakes as "feathers would make them overheat", then a bunch of sceptical people on forums that think they know better when they have less than 1/4 of the knowledge and the material on their hands.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


MrGorsh
Nov 18 2013, 03:08 AM
Dr. Hax
Nov 17 2013, 10:23 PM
Quote:
 
Whatever debate there used to be about feathered theropods, it's over. They had feathers

He seems to be ignorant of the fact that only fossils of coelorosaurs and an unnamed megalosaur ancestor have officially preserved feathers, and it's debatable whether or not the rest of the theropod group (Including Spinosaurs, Carnosaurs, and Ceratosaurs) had feathers. So no, it is not undeniable that all theropods had feathers. Not to mention the scales found on Carnotaurus. Second, he says uses ancestory as evidence, which is fine, but here's the argument he made:
Quote:
 
Only a few years ago, scientists thought that the ornithischians had naked skin, but that changed in 2009 when a tiny fuzzy ornithischian called Tianyulong was announced. Here's why this is important for sauropods: if theropods and ornithischians both had protofeathers

You heard that right, he used solely Tianyulong and NO OTHER ANCESTORS as backup for his argument. If he pointed out more than one genus, that would be fine, but no, he literally used a single solitary species as evidence for it. For reference, he was bringing ornithischians into the equasion because he was trying to support ornithischian ancestors as evidence for his theory, because ornithischians are second closest relatives to sauropods, next to theropods, but according to him, "All theropods were feathered, but that's not good enough evidence". If you have a defense for this guy, I'd like to hear it, but for me, it doesn't convince me that sauropods had feathers at all.
So you say that >feathered theropods< didn't have feathers, because scaly theropods were found with scales? Wut. He didn't say all theropods were feathered, but made a reference to the lizardraptors from JP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilophosaurus#Ichnology
^also, this is kind of interesting.

All in all I think you exaggerated a lot and should read more carefully when approaching subjects that are 'sensitive' area for you, ergo, feathered theropods being feathered.
I never said that feathered theropods were not feathered, I was just saying I think he could have used better wording, instead of bluntly saying "Theropods were feathered and the JP raptors are incorrect". Now granted, the JP raptors are of course incorrect, but it seems like he could have put up a better argument about feathered ornithischians in my opinion. He didn't even mention Psitaccosaurus, Yinlong, or the Unidentified neornithischian that was recently found!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Iben
Member Avatar
There'll be no foot-walking! Just air-flying!

Dr. Hax
Nov 18 2013, 04:24 AM
, but it seems like he could have put up a better argument about feathered ornithischians in my opinion. He didn't even mention Psitaccosaurus, Yinlong, or the Unidentified neornithischian that was recently found!
Quote:
 
Only a few years ago, scientists thought that the ornithischians had naked skin, but that changed in 2009 when a tiny fuzzy ornithischian called Tianyulong was announced. Here's why this is important for sauropods: if theropods and ornithischians both had protofeathers, then it's most likely that they inherited them from their common ancestor.


It links to a page that mentions Psittacosaurus. Next to that Yinlong hasn't been found with feathers and the new unidentified neornithischian wasn't even published when that article appeared on the WWD site.

Basically, you're complaining that a palaeontologist that made a simple article for a very broad public, that does include dinosaur-noobs as well, didn't go deep enough and is an example of how (you think that ) palaeontologists exaggerate ? Of course not all information is going to be in there, of course he's not going in detail. That was never the point of the article.

You're basically basing your claims on an article made for kids/adults that want to learn more about dinosaurs ( and not people who already knew a lot about it) instead of basing it on actual papers. Papers are much more detailed and give a lot more evidence than just a few things for a "noob" public.

Do you really expect every single detail in an article like that ?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


.....Every time I say something in this topic, somebody shows up and makes me feel like crap. I honestly feel worthless when people beat my arguments into the ground like this. I don't even know what I can think was scaly and what I can't anymore. It almost shocks me when you guys completely destroy my arguments without any mercy at all. I was just looking for an interesting argument about feathered sauropods, but instead, I was disappointed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Iben
Member Avatar
There'll be no foot-walking! Just air-flying!

You shouldn't feel like crap or feel worthless. I don't think that's any-ones intention here.

Look the thing is, it's completely fine if you prefer your dinosaurs to be scaly, that you prefer that they at least look intimidating, etc. I compare it to this. Some people love to draw their wolves like this, and this. That's fine, you can do that and you can like that if you want. However, when it's known and a fact that wolves actually look like this and this, you can't expect people to agree with you and try to convince that the version you like is actually the real deal. You can like a certain version of it, but when you go in a scientific discussion/argument/debate, whatever you want to call it really, then people will expect that you go by the facts and not by your likings.

So don't feel bad, because there's no need to. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


Thanks for that, Iben. And no matter how difefrent we see how our dinosaurs looked in life, I think we can all agree that T. rex did not look like this:
Posted Image
OH GOOD LORD WHAT IS THAT?!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


It looks like Scar as a plucked chicken! xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathius Tyra
Member Avatar
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life

That's a cockatrice, you know?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megaraptorking
Member Avatar
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.

i am going to say this involving feathered theropods right now, do not get me wrong I kinda like having some under feathered theropods like Carnotaurus, howver there is something we cannot say about it, if it had feathers or not. As well as a lot of prehistoric animals, we cannot tell if they had fur, feathers, scales, skin, or whatever on their body because we never watched or looked at them in a living world.

However for the case of find dinosaur scales, one it does not matter if there were scales or not, because for it being a chunk even the head it could be not feathered for a bilogical reason or the animal had feathers over scales which I think some things or animals have today (I do not remember this much) Because if you see a carnotaurus they are not much of a supreme hunter, I mean it was a much bulldog like dinosaur, made by nature.

Carnotaurus if it had a coat of feathers could have looked similar to a really ugly over-grown vulture lizard who really looked ugly. I mean I love vultures but that would be still ugly in a way. Or another way they could be fully feathered or that their body would have a undercover of feathers where it kinda is like a turtle (the scutes being unfeathered in this situation) who had some parts of their body.

So for certain nobody can say a dinosaur is not feathered nor can they say it is feathered unless there is more proof. We have feathered Megalosaurs, Tyrannosaurus, and Dromeosaurs, then feathered herbivores like triceratops and Tianyulong so there is a chance more had feathers...

Also everybody who denies Spinosaurids had feathers, they are from the Megalosaurids so.... Yeah there is more chances of them being feathered than ever plus the fact that early megalosaurids had feathers then why would their ancestors need to lose them. (If you say to be able to good in water your a idiot because birds have feathers even if they are aquatic....)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


if you are refering to Sciurumimus, we aren't sure yet if it's a megalosaurid or a coelurosaurs, so i think we are still far from telling Spinos were feathered too (don't get me wrong, i love feathered spinosaurs).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megaraptorking
Member Avatar
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.

Good point but still if it was that just proves the point even more if not still there is a more likely chance spinos had feathers kinda oily type which lets them to be able to not have soaked feathers weighing them down like a kid with swim trunks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply