S- Dinosaur talk

1,880 Views | 10 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by Solo Tetherball Champ
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Feathers confirmed?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/health/dinosaur-tail-trapped-in-amber-trnd/index.html
Post removed:
by user
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I identify as Ultra-MAGA
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-feathered-dinosaurs-fluffier-thought.html

Quote:

Researchers examined, at high resolution, an exceptionally-preserved fossil of the crow-sized paravian dinosaur Anchiornis - comparing its fossilised feathers to those of other dinosaurs and extinct birds.

The feathers around the body of Anchiornis, known as contour feathers, revealed a newly-described, extinct, primitive feather form consisting of a short quill with long, independent, flexible barbs erupting from the quill at low angles to form two vanes and a forked feather shape.

The observations were made possible by decay processes that separated some of these feathers from the body prior to burial and fossilisation, making their structure easier to interpret.

Such feathers would have given Anchiornis a fluffy appearance relative to the streamlined bodies of modern flying birds, whose feathers have tightly-zipped vanes forming continuous surfaces. Anchiornis's unzipped feathers might have affected the animal's ability to control its temperature and repel water, possibly being less effective than the vanes of most modern feathers. This shaggy plumage would also have increased drag when Anchiornis glided.

Additionally, the feathers on the wing of Anchiornis lack the aerodynamic, asymmetrical vanes of modern flight feathers, and the new research shows that these vanes were also not tightly-zipped compared to modern flight feathers. This would have hindered the feather's ability to form a lift surface. To compensate, paravians like Anchiornis packed multiple rows of long feathers into the wing, unlike modern birds, where most of the wing surface is formed by just one row of feathers.


Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And we've recently discovered a murderswan.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/swimming-dinosaur/547631/

Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

And we've recently discovered a murderswan.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/swimming-dinosaur/547631/



Thats a name that I can get behind.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Despite not liking the feathers (mainly on aesthetic grounds -I've yet to see a feathered reconstruction that doesn't look lame) I've long since been won over to the feathered camp.

The question remains, is which dinosaur branches had feathers and how much coverage? Right now I believe most confirmed feather findings are all coelurosaurs. Have any sauropods or orinthiscian dinosaurs been discovered with feathers or protofeathers?

Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Despite not liking the feathers (mainly on aesthetic grounds -I've yet to see a feathered reconstruction that doesn't look lame) I've long since been won over to the feathered camp.

The question remains, is which dinosaur branches had feathers and how much coverage? Right now I believe most confirmed feather findings are all coelurosaurs. Have any sauropods or orinthiscian dinosaurs been discovered with feathers or protofeathers?




Psittacosaurus and a couple other Ornithschians have been found with integumentary structures very similar to proto-feathers. Kulindadromeus is an Ornithschian with compound feathers.

If the recent reshuffling of the Dinosaur phylogenetic tree is right and Ornithoscelida is the right grouping, it would make sense to see some feather-like structures in most members of the clade.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For you Twitterati, @SUEtheTrex is a fantastic follow.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nice job, you sent me down a deep rabbit hole of wikipedia and Google, when I should have been helping my wife decorate for Christmas and my sons first birthday (it's like planning a wedding all over again).

As I was reviewing information on all of those dinosaurs and their reconstructions, I was really hit by the magnitude of how we know so little about what these dinosaurs looked like. I should clarify: I grew up a dinosaur nut and always possessed more knowledge and enthusiasm on the subject than the above-average lay person, but I never truly questioned reconstruction efforts. Sure, there were many that I didn't like, and some that I loved Now I'm looking at some of the fossils that show evidence of feathers and quills, and I'm struck by what isn't showing: Is it possible that some of these might have had trunks? Ears? Prehensile lips? Humps like in camels?


*the evidence does not currently support sauropods possessing trunks, fyi. This is just an example to help break our paradigm.

In a 100 million years, a future paleontologist could unearth an elephant and probably have no idea that an elephant had massive ears, or that it had such a long trunk. They may wonder at how such a large herbivore managed to eat, but they'd probably initial suspect that they used their tusks to help somehow. My poorly worded point is that if we actually saw a living dinosaur out and about, we may not immediately recognize it as a dinosaur, based on what we can see from fossils.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Always happy to help.

There's a great book out there called "All Yesterdays" that approaches this issue and engages in some interesting speculative art. They make a couple really good points: if we reconstructed living animals like we reconstruct Dinosaurs we'd have some terrifying results.

Swans:

(For my money, this captures the soul of a swan perfectly)

Baboon:


Elephant:


I agree that Sauropods, for example, didn't have trunks, but you do have to wonder what we lost in fossilization. The bones are weird. The living animals probably looked as close to alien as we could imagine.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

Always happy to help.

There's a great book out there called "All Yesterdays" that approaches this issue and engages in some interesting speculative art. They make a couple really good points: if we reconstructed living animals like we reconstruct Dinosaurs we'd have some terrifying results.

Swans:

(For my money, this captures the soul of a swan perfectly)

Baboon:


Elephant:


I agree that Sauropods, for example, didn't have trunks, but you do have to wonder what we lost in fossilization. The bones are weird. The living animals probably looked as close to alien as we could imagine.

Wow, that book is exactly the point I was trying to make. Some of the reconstructions and their descriptions of living animals (the house-cat, for example) are hilarious, but help to drive home their lesson.

I'm going to have to buy a copy.

Edit: based upon what I've read about this book, it also addresses a criticism I posted in the entertainment board regarding the behavior of Dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park films. In the films, dinosaurs (particularly the predators) are often portrayed more like monsters who only have the goal of relentlessly hunting and killing every human. Contrast this with real life interactions with predators, where people can get reasonably close to a predator such as a lion without being attacked (still wouldn't recommend it). Most predators prefer to stalk and ambush their prey, so the they would rather not try to attack and kill another animal who is already alert and aware of their presences. This book apparently portrays dinosaurs chilling, sleeping, drinking water, etc. By doing so they're hoping to break the paradigm of Dinosaurs being treated/depicted as essentially medieval dragons/monsters.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.