Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. 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 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
  • 2
  • 9
Sooo, dinosaurs have officially turned into birds
Topic Started: Nov 3 2012, 08:13 AM (10,711 Views)
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Not in the evolutionary sense, but in the sarcastic sense. Dinosaurs used to be large, scaly, beasts. Now, everyone thinks they all (yes, including sauropods) had feathers. If there have been countless dinosaur skin-impressions, and only a couple feathered non-ceoulosaur theropods, I guess that just puts feathers on every dinosaur, even when the evidence states otherwise. Anyone else bothered by this? :angry:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Nov 4 2012, 03:16 AM
theropod
Nov 4 2012, 02:56 AM
you mean disproven

I wonder what excuse you (not you jingoferx) guys have for the existence of Tianyulong confuciusi

I hope it´s not the "those are not real feathers, those are quills"-and after I ask where they see the difference-"because they developed in a different evolutionary line"-which is the exact thing they want to prove with the argument-excuse (thus my longest excuse-name)
They are quills-like structures, not feathers, that is all. Do you think porcupines have highly derived feathers? The structures are not homologous, feathers evolve from scales and quills can also evolve from scales, just like hands can become flippers, or wings, one does not have to lead to the other.
Posted Image
It doesn´t have to, but it is likely, at least mroe likely than such similar structures devoloping for several times in one group, and quills can lead to feathers or vice versa, for example you can see it in ratite birds. Most likely the quill-like structures are nothing but a precursor of more derived structures, or a case of reversed evolution like in a cassowary.

Also, the protofeathers of some theropods are said to be just the same as the quills in Tianyulong (beipiaosaurus for example). This just shows how related the two forms are.

Quote:
 
The feathers in ceoulosaurs and advanced ornithopods could have evolved along the same lines, making it so that feathers in ornithopods, like earlier theropods, only existed in the more advanced forms.

But unfortunately for you heterodontosauridae is not part of ornithopoda, and mostly acknowledged to be a very basal clade of Ornithischia.

OR they could have simply derived from the same ancestor, developing slightly different shapes (remaining quills in the one branch and evolving into pennaceous feathers in the other)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
think about it this way: which is more likely, that all these groups did develop their filaments independently, or that their common ancestor had some sort of filamentous integument that developed slightly different shapes or stayed in an ancestral condition in some, attained a derived one in others or was secondarily lost or reduced? Consider we have little evidence AGAINST a body covering in those in between, but a lot of evidence for it in many taxa. By mere likelyhood it is clear which is the most probably, isn´t it?
Edited by theropod, Nov 4 2012, 08:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
There is a theropod handprint(or a foot, I am not an expert ichnologist) with bristle like integument from the Triassic of Germany...
(Oh, and I knew about it for quite some time, but I wanted to see how desperate some people are)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What i find confusing is that all of a sudden it went from theropods not having feathers, to only certain groups having it, to all having it, now back to sauropods having it..... Wtf? Everyone knows herbivourus dinosaurs had more lizard like traits then theropods.
Example, theropods were bird hipped, and bipedal. The herbivors were lizard hipped. That gives some clue what had what.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Theropods(not including birds) were not saurischians?
And I am not saying that all dinosaur were looking like a funky parrot but they probaly all had some type of integument tha was probaly homologous with feathers, be it small folicles or bristles.
And as I posted, there is a palaeontolist claiming to work on a feathered sauropod. I do not know what to think of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Nov 4 2012, 12:02 PM
What i find confusing is that all of a sudden it went from theropods not having feathers, to only certain groups having it, to all having it, now back to sauropods having it..... Wtf? Everyone knows herbivourus dinosaurs had more lizard like traits then theropods.
Example, theropods were bird hipped, and bipedal. The herbivors were lizard hipped. That gives some clue what had what.
actually that´s not true. ornithischians which are all herbovires have a birdlike pelvis, while most saurioschians, including most theropods and sauropods, have a "lizard hip". the birdlike pelvise only quite recently evolved analogous in maniraptorans. The herbivores being less birdlike is merely a matter of perspective. of course, if you ignore all the findings of filaments in them they might seem less birdlike, but if you consider the facts they are probably just as likely to have integument and non-avian dinosaurs alltogether where probably even more similar to aves than tought
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Nov 4 2012, 12:02 PM
What i find confusing is that all of a sudden it went from theropods not having feathers, to only certain groups having it, to all having it, now back to sauropods having it..... Wtf? Everyone knows herbivourus dinosaurs had more lizard like traits then theropods.
Example, theropods were bird hipped, and bipedal. The herbivors were lizard hipped. That gives some clue what had what.
Correction: Theropods and sauropods were lizard hipped (not including birds of course). All of the other herbivorous dinosaurs were bird hipped.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Can you tell me what the point of feathers on something like a sauropod would be? Living in a warm climate, they are huge and would be exhausted from the heat with feathers.


Feathers actually are able to warm up and cool animals down. Unegalia or whatever his name was whipped my ass on this issue. Most theropods were feathered and many herbivorous dinosaurs could have been feathered get over it.

Quote:
 
Golden eagle is by far cooler than t rex


Your dinosaur/trex bashing is getting extremely irritating. Stay on topic and make contributions to the discussion or get the hell out.

Edited by Tyrant, Nov 5 2012, 06:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrant, don't take Kurtz seriously, when it comes to T-rex.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Nov 5 2012, 12:15 AM
Black Ice
Nov 4 2012, 12:02 PM
What i find confusing is that all of a sudden it went from theropods not having feathers, to only certain groups having it, to all having it, now back to sauropods having it..... Wtf? Everyone knows herbivourus dinosaurs had more lizard like traits then theropods.
Example, theropods were bird hipped, and bipedal. The herbivors were lizard hipped. That gives some clue what had what.
Correction: Theropods and sauropods were lizard hipped (not including birds of course). All of the other herbivorous dinosaurs were bird hipped.
Oh my bad, never got the memo on that lol
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrant
Nov 5 2012, 06:41 AM
Quote:
 
Most theropods were feathered and many herbivorous dinosaurs could have been feathered get over it.

Get over it? They are feathering sauropods, even when there were no feathers found on sauropods!

*Deleted Post*
Edited by Godzillasaurus, Nov 8 2012, 09:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Nov 5 2012, 08:25 AM
Tyrant
Nov 5 2012, 06:41 AM
Quote:
 
Most theropods were feathered and many herbivorous dinosaurs could have been feathered get over it.

Get over it? They are feathering sauropods, even when there were no feathers found on sauropods!
what´s that supposed to mean? @Tyrant, you know that there are even claims of feathered sauropods, that currently if at all this is only very seldomly reconstructed and that among ornithodirans in many groups filamentous integment was found, meaning this characteristic was shared by them and you don´t need direct evidence to reconstruct them?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admantus
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Nov 4 2012, 07:21 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Nov 4 2012, 06:22 AM
Well, if Ornithopods really had feathers, it's likely that the ancestors of dinosaurs already had them, maybe the ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs had them. I still have my doubts ffor Ornithopods, so I limit them at the moment for theropods.

BTW, dinosaurs may have been more advanced than tought.
Feathers in ornithopods doesn't necessarily mean that their ancestors had feathers. The feathers in ceoulosaurs and advanced ornithopods could have evolved along the same lines, making it so that feathers in ornithopods, like earlier theropods, only existed in the more advanced forms.
Again, that's just like saying that fur evolved seperately in carnivorians and aryctodactyls.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ornithopods were not feathered...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FelinePowah
Member Avatar
Pussy Lover
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ThisPosted Image looks far cooler

The this
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.