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
  • 5
  • 9
Sooo, dinosaurs have officially turned into birds
Topic Started: Nov 3 2012, 08:13 AM (10,708 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:
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MantisShrimp
Oct 17 2013, 01:25 AM
theropod
Oct 17 2013, 02:56 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Oct 16 2013, 10:45 PM
theropod
Oct 16 2013, 09:36 PM
Alligator missisipiensis, a derived member of crurotarsi whose genes contain the information for developing feathers. this makes it likely its a plesiomorphic condition secondarily lost in adult crurotarsi.
Could you show a source for that? Because this is somehow amazing to me.
See the last line of my last post, that's the paper it's from (it was cited in the wikipedia article about feathers)
Thank you!
theropod
Oct 17 2013, 03:08 AM
Quote:
 
Well pterosaur pycnofibres are usually compared with mammalian hair and are structured differently from even primitive feathers.
Is this sufficient evidence to suggest they were not homologous? Do you even have a source for that, and a proper description? Didn't I already provide you with enough examples of how structure in homologous filaments varies?
I am not Spino, but I have found this:
Quote:
 
Two other Chinese specimens were reported with integumental covering, coming from the same stratum (the Daohugou Bed) as Jeholopterus. So far we have not had the opportunity to examine this material. The first one is a small unnamed anurognathid with extensive preservation of soft tissue, including fibres that have been interpreted as protofeathers (Ji & Yuan 2002). The published pictures show that the soft tissue interpreted as protofeathers is of the same nature as the pycnofibres of Jeholopterus. There is no indication of branching structures that are expected for feather precursors. Although from the phylogenetic position most authors tend to agree that pterosaurs are closely related to dinosaurs (e.g. Sereno 1991; Padian & Rayner 1993; Kellner 2004a), regarding those structures as protofeathers implies that dinosaurs and closely related taxa must originally have had similar integument covering that in more derived theropod taxa (including birds) eventually developed into feathers. There is presently no such evidence, despite much well-preserved dinosaur material (e.g. Zheng et al. 2009). If other phylogenetic positions regarding pterosaurs as more primitive within archosaurormorphs (e.g. Bennett 1996) or even closely related to protorosaurs (Peters 2000; but see Hone & Benton 2007) are accepted, the case regarding pycnofibres as protofeathers is even less appealing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842671/?report=classic
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hmm, as already pointed out stage 1 feathers (spinos so-called "quills") are not branching structures either (if we follow him, so extremely different they don't even deserve the name "feathers"), and evidently precursors of more derived feathers because we can find both in the same clades of coelurosauria.

We are also (hopefully, by now) all aware how morphology of the filament varies extensively in related groups and homologous structures of the integument, so I think that's not a valid argument (neither is that pterosaurs may not have been closely related to dinosaurs, because the general opinion is that they are and at any rate even non-ornithodiran archosaurs show evidence for having once posessed feathers).

Since these filaments are described as protofeathers and apparently similar to stage one feathers in dinosaurs, and it can not be concluded they are not homologous from the material we have, it should be assumed that they are. All the evidence is pointing towards this. More and more archosaurs are being found to have had filaments.

And frankly, it's not evidence for them being homologous that has to be shown, this should be our default assumption. Everything suggesting a more complicated path of evolution is what has to be supported first.
Edited by theropod, Oct 18 2013, 06:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Its the other way round, Birds have turned into Dinosaurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hope this isn't too off-topic. I wonder why birds haven't evolved or so little in dinosaur-like-morphs. Galliformes remind me the most of dinosaurs alongside ratites and a few specific species.

Except for the moa's, New Zealands ground birds evolved into something totally different. Of course there are different ancestors at play. And I guess it is a matter of chance, and another kind of selection.

Though I must add, Australian pleistocene fauna had some dinosaur-like birds. Terror birds were dinosaur-like aswell.

By the looks of it, beaks are a better adaption. Maybe we'll see parrot type beaks on pheasant like birds someday, who browse on vegetation, nuts, seeds and invertebrates.
Edited by Mesopredator, Feb 6 2015, 01:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
J3st3r56
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Honestly, I'm goddamn sick of all these bloody children crying about how dinosaurs "arent cool anymore" or "they look silly" or "they make drawings look weird". I'm 15 and I act more maturely than alot of people on the internet. Its the same kind of people who want dinosaurs to bend to their will. "Spinosaurus wasn't quadropedal!", "Spinosaurus could kick t-rex's butt!", "Dinosaurs didn't have feathers!". It really just makes me tired it does. Sorry for ranting, I know it should gone on my blog or something, but that's just how i feel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maker
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillasaurus
Nov 3 2012, 08:13 AM
Dinosaurs used to be large, scaly, beasts.
So you are bothered by discoveries of small dinosaurs without scales and with feathers, which are majority? Ridiculous.
Edited by maker, Feb 17 2015, 08:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
J3st3r56
Feb 17 2015, 08:01 PM
Honestly, I'm goddamn sick of all these bloody children crying about how dinosaurs "arent cool anymore" or "they look silly" or "they make drawings look weird". I'm 15 and I act more maturely than alot of people on the internet. Its the same kind of people who want dinosaurs to bend to their will. "Spinosaurus wasn't quadropedal!", "Spinosaurus could kick t-rex's butt!", "Dinosaurs didn't have feathers!". It really just makes me tired it does. Sorry for ranting, I know it should gone on my blog or something, but that's just how i feel.
It is okay. Besides, the first post was a rant too.

Clearly, what you describe is psychological. Maybe it conflicts with peoples personal identity or whatever. I think dinosaur popular culture is partly to blame for the aversion towards changes in the dinosaurs.

I personally think dinosaurs are cooler than ever. The feathers, the differences in age, etc. They are starting to become more diverse.

Edited by Mesopredator, Feb 17 2015, 09:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moreno
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Me personally, I was at first against it, but the truth is the truth and you can't argue against it. The idea was jarring to me at first, thinking dinosaurs were always scaly having grew up on Jurassic Park. But it grew on me. I think a tyrannorsaurus rex like this would be scary/awesome to see in person. (Not sure if it's 100% accurate)
Posted Image

I'd say it adds more diversity to dinosaurs, like a mane of feathers on a Tyrannosaurus Rex, or a utahraptor covered in feathers.

Look at eagles, powerful creatures able to take on much larger animals and are pretty intimidating. Dinosaurs eventually evolving to birds shouldn't be a bad thing. Doesn't mean their big giant chickens, Their just different then what we thought they were all along and adds a lot more to discuss about and becoming more complex then the stereotype of the slow mainly scaly lethargic animals of old.

Just my take on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cape Leopard
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I find it kinda amusing when people denigrate feathered dinosaurs as "giant chickens" ... as it happens, chickens are actually pretty tough birds and they are very versatile in what they can eat.

They kill and eat small animals such as mice and lizards as well as seeds/plants.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Our chickens would run after mice and kill them. But when I removed very young rats from their coop they were afraid. My pheasant used his beak and feet to kill them when I threw them out of the coop, but did not eat them.

I think it some sort of brand loyality that makes people dislike the feathered dinosaurs. And birds being less cool.

But birds are cool.
Edited by Mesopredator, Feb 18 2015, 01:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
To be honest, most Dinosaurs just look way cooler without feathers.
Birds of prey on the other side look preety awesome.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
hte problemis imo is the overall outlook of feathered dinosaurs in movie depictions. i'm sorry, but the general public would not be pleased with seeing a giant chicken or oversize emerald lizard in a movie about dinosaurs. the truth should be stretched out a bit just to catch the audience attention, as movie films would never be 100% accurate or satisfy the scientific community. i think documentaries should be given the job of presenting proper data on prehistoric life. thus it is why i think a PROPER remake of walking with dinosaurs is the best bet. if you want to make an actual good cinema movie about feathered dinosaurs, instead of using this
Posted Image
or this
Posted Image
how about this
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
( this is yutyrannus btw)
make the feathered dinosaurs ferocious and threatening. not bright and flamboyant. give a threatening and predatory drive to the creatures while at the same time, have it make sense. this is what Jurassic park has done and it turned into an movie classic even to this day, where every dinosaur in the film is considered inaccurate. it is like this because the animals were true attention grabbers, and have successfully reeled in the public's attention in what dinosaurs were like at the time. we need a new, modern film that can do the same. deliver a revolutionary outlook on non- avian dinosaurs in this time period.
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Feb 18 2015, 01:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I do agree that sometimes the feathers can look worse, for example:

Posted Image

I do not like this one, but this one I do:

Posted Image

Oh and I fully agree we need another dinosaur "revolution".

And if it is scientific accurate, it is what it is.
Edited by Mesopredator, Feb 18 2015, 02:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moreno
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I remember seeing the trailer for that movie and I'm like that's odd. Would a predator even be that bright?

That picture you posted spino is the direction I would go in. Making a large Theropod with a lot of colors and Turkey jowls isn't the way to go IMO.

Or you could make the coat rather "short haired" and,like this to please both world's, not too much coating and with the scales
Posted Image

Or still covered but a short coat.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't get why some people are convinced that large theropods like tyrannosaurus would be brightly colored. Sure a lot of birds have bright plumages but last I checked not many predatory ones do. Even then, the birds usually have the advantage pf flight so even if they are blue or red they could still ambush effectively ambush prey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 9

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.