|
Post by theropod on Sept 12, 2013 23:10:09 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 15, 2013 16:27:12 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 15, 2013 20:36:02 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 15, 2013 20:37:59 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 25, 2014 0:47:35 GMT 5
The small feathered ornitischian in last year’s SVP Abstracts is now described as Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus: www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/451This was written by David Hone: www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/jul/24/kulindadromeus-feathers-dinosaur-birds-evolution-siberia-russiaThere are already tons of newspaper articles about it, this was posted by Scott Hartman on his newsgroup: www.theverge.com/2014/7/24/5933949/a-new-fossil-suggests-dinosaurs-may-have-had-feathersFunny how this article makes such a huge deal about it, the author makes it seem as if no herbivorous dinosaur or ornitischian with feathers had been found before (while we actually have at least two other feathered ornitischians and, considering ornithomimids and therizinosaurs, dozens of herbivores). So called "science journalism" really doesn’t take a lot of expertise nowadays… It’s definitely a fascinating discovery in many ways 1. I can’t wait to see the paper! 1That is: • Evidence for co-ocurrence of various evolutionary grades of feathers and "scales" on one and the same animal. • Further evidence of filaments in general in a non-coelurosaurian, non theropod dinosaur. • Evidence for complex filaments in an ornitischian. • First case of filaments involving a basal neoornitischian.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 25, 2014 0:52:52 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 25, 2014 2:18:06 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 11, 2014 14:59:55 GMT 5
I really missed something during my absence.
BTW, looks like the paper supports the theory expressed by theropod (and me) on carnivora before. Here is what Wikipedia cited from the paper:Sciurumimus was just the beginning…
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Aug 13, 2014 15:37:55 GMT 5
Godefroit et al. doesn't mention the alligator genes, I tried to dig deeper and all I could find was a brand new BANDit trying to prove birds are pseudosuchians.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 13, 2014 16:56:01 GMT 5
You are right, I forgot to download the paper first and check for myself before just citing wikipedia. The archosaur feather idea was in there, but the alligator genes were added by the wiki user. Either a miscitation or some extra information with no source.
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Aug 14, 2014 2:28:37 GMT 5
Having the gene for filamentous structures of course is hereditary and not necessarily visible. Obviously, if modern crocodilians have this "gene", then it is obviously 100% recessive.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 14, 2014 14:40:32 GMT 5
They maybe don't even have it, since it appears to be a misquotation. But you are right in case they have it.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 15, 2014 17:40:34 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 20, 2014 18:20:34 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 23:06:40 GMT 5
I'm not seeing any part of that abstract dealing with Sciurumimus' phylogenetic position, nor does the title imply that it's dealing with that subject. Cau's suggestion implying Sciurumimus as a coelurosaur doesn't appear to be refuted, and would probably change the result by a considerable amount if true.
|
|