More from the Dangerchicken:
Zegh's Dinosaur Thread
- Thread starter zegh8578
- Start date
Sigh, feathered theropods have been a fact since the early stupid 90s, but sure - popular-science-media, keep sensationalizing it for the rest of man kinds existence, HOW is this still such a mega-shocker? ALL warm-blooded creatures - ALL of them - have insulating integument! How is this still such a huge shocker!?
Also, it doesn't mean "[insert dino] = chicken", people really suck at understanding science :I
If they want to report something new, then they should report how small Ornithischians (herbivorous dinosaurs not related to Theropods, and not related to birds) also had fur/feathers, that actually IS surprising, but nobody reports it cus they are not Tyrannosaurus=Chicken=lol, they are _actually_ intriguing, in that they suggest that integument might very well be pre-dinosaurian in origin - meaning all dinosaurs, even sauropods, would have genetic disposition for fur-growth, even if they would have lost it later on.
Ceratopsids, for example, might have grown large porcupine-like spines, made from keratin, out of their innate fur-genes, dormant untill needed
tail bristles on Triceratops grandfather Psittacosaurus:
Kulindadromeus fuzz:
Both of the above are very far removed from birds, and yet they grew feathers and/or fur
Also, it doesn't mean "[insert dino] = chicken", people really suck at understanding science :I
If they want to report something new, then they should report how small Ornithischians (herbivorous dinosaurs not related to Theropods, and not related to birds) also had fur/feathers, that actually IS surprising, but nobody reports it cus they are not Tyrannosaurus=Chicken=lol, they are _actually_ intriguing, in that they suggest that integument might very well be pre-dinosaurian in origin - meaning all dinosaurs, even sauropods, would have genetic disposition for fur-growth, even if they would have lost it later on.
Ceratopsids, for example, might have grown large porcupine-like spines, made from keratin, out of their innate fur-genes, dormant untill needed
tail bristles on Triceratops grandfather Psittacosaurus:
Kulindadromeus fuzz:
Both of the above are very far removed from birds, and yet they grew feathers and/or fur
Last edited:
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Blame Spielberg.
Are there any good illustrations of furry Ornitischians?
I don't recall ever seeing one.
I don't recall ever seeing one.
More the movies that came after his. Jurrasic Park, did a lot of good things and above all, it was a decent movie. But all the Sequels, are just quick cash grabs. Jurrasic World for example, could have gone with fluffy, feathery Dinos.
Danger Chicken Squat!
Didn't it try to handwave the issue that those aren't real dinosaurs but dino + contemporary reptiles/amphibians hybrids, hence loss of fur and such things?
That being said, JP3 did introduce velociraptor with hairy growth. Shitty film nonetheless.
That being said, JP3 did introduce velociraptor with hairy growth. Shitty film nonetheless.
Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus (by Andrey Atuchin) This is based purely on the fossils, Kulindadromeus had fuzzy body, extra fluffy ankles, and a scaly tail.
Leaellynasaura amicagraphica (by John Conway), this is more speculative, to kind of break out of the cliched looks. Leaellynasaura is known from southern Australia, which would be arctic in that time, and thus the animals would need thick insulation.
Velociraptor mongoliensis (by John Conway), THIS is Velociraptor reproduced without any compromise between pleasing paleo-nerds and pleasing the "don't ruin my scaly dinosaurs"-crowd. Maniraptoran theropods weren't "moderately feathered, so not to ruin that awesome image." they were *fully* feathered, including pennaceous wing feathers.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Does this mean people with Dinosaur Fetishes aren't Scalies but rather regular furries?
Gotta love Conway's work. Atuchin is nice too.
Thanks for pics.
Thanks for pics.
Conway is one of those people who are so talented, it kind of irritates me. He always has this visionary-approach to paleo art, as well as always being very, very accurate
Yeah, you've mentioned him before many times.
...
Did Sauropods (IIRC long neck bastard) have fur or something akin to it? How did that look?
It probably looked fabulous.
Sauropods preserve famously poorly, since skeletons need to be submerged and encased in sediment to fossilize, and sauropod bones are less likely to ever preserve. Most sauropod fossils consist of the larger bones, usually femora, humera, and vertebral collumn - and as such, skin impressions are nearly non existent. The only I can think of off the top of my head are osteoderms of the Titanosaur Saltasaurus (as in, bony scutes - not merely scales, but bone protrutions, like in living crocodiles), and one sole example again, crocodile like rows of flattened spines - identical in appearance to those along crocodile tails - alongside the top of the back of some unidentified Diplodocid of Morrison fm. (which means it could very well be Diplodocus itself) - these spines were cartillageous though, and did not contain bone (contrary to the bony skin of Saltasaurus)
Diplodocids and Titanosaurs were not closely related, yet both show some or other form of spiky or bony deterrent on their skin. Otherwise there are few and rare impressions showing a generally scaly skin of the same type as seen in Ceratopsids and Hadrosaurs, as in - a non-overlapping mosaic of ceratinous scutes.
This means, most likely Sauropods were "naked" or scaly skinned, sometimes with bony or ceratinous ornaments/spines/deterrents - at the very least. Take into consideration that the sample sizes we're dealing with here are absolutely miniscule
One can add that, if you trace back evolution, the stem-forms of Sauropods, Theropods and Saurischians meet, and become more and more indistinguishable towards the root (so much so, there's been a recent re-shuffling, where "Saurischia" was disbanded, and Theropoda+Ornithischia come to form Ornithoscelida, sister group to Sauropodomorpha)
This means that we could in theory talk of furry basal Sauropodomorphs, but for now there's no direct evidence of fuzz in the basal dinosaurian forms - unless we take into account Pterosaurs, which are close relatives (Pterosauria and Dinosauria come together as Ornithodira, as sister groups)
That's when it becomes vital to uncover more basal forms. IF fur/integument develops over and over, independently, we could be looking at fuzz evolving in more advanced Coelurosaur Theropods (with scaly basal Theropods), all scaly sauropods, including basal forms, and fuzzy Ornithischians that replace their fuzz for plates, armors, spines, bristles and scales in later forms.
If instead we consider basal Ornothodirans to be fuzzy - and for Pterosaur fuzz to be descendant of that, then all dinosaur main branches would also have genetic disposition for integument that manifest on and off, and which would also mean all primitive dinosaur forms were likely to have fuzz, in ancestral forms.
Very recently, it was discovered that in some Pterosaurs, their hairs branch similar to feathery down, again prompting the question - do these features keep appearing independently, or do they go way, way back?
Last edited:
Well, that's one comprehensive post. I need a bit more rested mind to figure all of that out. Will get back to you soon.
Zegh, why havn't you ever decided to study paleontology? Becoming a Dino-Scientist. You definetly seem to have the correct autism for it.
You could definetly explain a fat and obnoxious kid, what a Raptor could do to them!
You could definetly explain a fat and obnoxious kid, what a Raptor could do to them!
WeissYohji
Still Mildly Glowing
How in the blue hell would feathers ruin non-bird theropods? HOW? HOW? Don't tell me feathered things can't be scary because that's a lie. Just look at an angry cassowary in action.
Also, FEATHERS AREN'T FUR! No dinosaur is known to have had fur; only MAMMALS have that shit. Dinosaurs have FEATHERS. The structure is different and so is the type of keratin. Mammals have alpha keratin. Diapsids all have beta keratin.
Also, FEATHERS AREN'T FUR! No dinosaur is known to have had fur; only MAMMALS have that shit. Dinosaurs have FEATHERS. The structure is different and so is the type of keratin. Mammals have alpha keratin. Diapsids all have beta keratin.
For the non-feather types in dinosaurs (such as proto-feathers in Theropods), the word "integument" is always the safest, because it denotes a soft keratinous covering, while still working to figure what exactly it is. Here I'm using the word "fur" because for many types of dino-integument, "fur" is much closer to imagining the exterior appearance. Kulindadromeus was *not* covered with wide, complexely branched, leaf-shaped feathers, as birds - or even Maniraptorans. It was much more similar to our idea of "fur" in appearance. The same goes for Pterosaurs, their integument is not clear cut one thing or the other, some are single stranded, some are branched. Neither are "fur", but they're not necesarily "feather" either, so - soft integument!
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
A pic from "Rediscovering T-Rex", a documentary. You probably have seen it. Maybe already posted here. Dat a scary brotha.
Pretty amazing. Somehow the footprints make them 'real'.
Pretty amazing. Somehow the footprints make them 'real'.
Last edited:
Footprints are cool, did you know they have their own separate nomenclature and classification? For example, Grallator represents large, three-toed, long-toed prints, and are known from a multitude of species, all over the world, across half the Mesozoic. There's no way for paleontologists to definitely tie a set of prints to actual species known from fossils, there's no way to confirm, so the prints follow their own separate taxonomy. This means Allosaur footprints and Dilophosaur footprints would both be classified as Grallator, because the prints would be fairly similar - three toed, long toes
Eggs similarily follow a separate taxonomy, even when they are directly tied to a species (which is easyer, because some dinosaurs have died right on top of their respective nests), for example, the Oviraptorid Heyuannia is directly tied to numerous eggs classified as Macroolithus (which incidentally are known to have been blue in color). Macroelongatoolithus are similar, but much larger, and probably belong to Gigantoraptor or something closely related.
Eggs similarily follow a separate taxonomy, even when they are directly tied to a species (which is easyer, because some dinosaurs have died right on top of their respective nests), for example, the Oviraptorid Heyuannia is directly tied to numerous eggs classified as Macroolithus (which incidentally are known to have been blue in color). Macroelongatoolithus are similar, but much larger, and probably belong to Gigantoraptor or something closely related.
Well, all those 'myths' about Dragons must come from somewhere I guess.