|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 21, 2014 0:13:02 GMT 5
Maybe we have to wait for the whole paper, stomatopod claimed that it would provide some evidence for Sciurumimus being a megalosaur. The comparison to the filaments of Psittacosaurus is interesting.
EDIT: Another abstract:
Sciurumimus shows characters of basal tetanurans, such as a medially closed maxillary fenestra and a broad groove below the occipital condyle, but differs from coelurosaurs in many plesiomorphic features, indicating that it is a non-coelurosaurian tetanuran.
NEW INFORMATION ON THE THEROPOD DINOSAURS FROM THE LATE JURASSIC LITHOGRAPHIC LIMESTONES OF SOUTHERN GERMANY
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 21, 2014 3:37:07 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. I didn’t claim it did, it appears that’s another paper. The interesting part is the explicit suggestion of homology between Sciurumimus’ and ornithischians’ filaments. What result, and how would it chance it? |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 22, 2014 6:27:02 GMT 5
It was not a proposal but a result of analysing it in his megamatrix. And of course it has not been refuted as it is not even published yet.
You must also that Cau did not code a new plesiomorphic characters as they MAY be due to ontogeny, which without further studies, adds a bias in favor of a Coelurosaurian position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 15:39:23 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. I didn’t claim it did, it appears that’s another paper. The interesting part is the explicit suggestion of homology between Sciurumimus’ and ornithischians’ filaments. The comparison with ornithischians in the abstract seems to me like it would make...ah forget about that, we discussed about it several times already. This part: "In sum, Sciurumimus shows the
phylogenetically oldest record for feathers within theropods, closing the gap towards basal ornithischian dinosaurs and pterosaurs possessing filamentous integuments."
If Sciurumimus turns out to be a coelurosaur, it would be "closing the gap" as much as creatures like Sinocalliopteryx and Juravenator do.
I'm still wondering how the heck did pterosaurs even get involved there. We need non-dinosaurian dinosauromorphs or so to be found with any kind of filament(quills, feathers, pycnofibres, whatever) for that part(that pterosaur-dinosaur integument homology thing)to be anything more than "wild speculation". |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 22, 2014 19:25:11 GMT 5
This part: "In sum, Sciurumimus shows the
phylogenetically oldest record for feathers within theropods, closing the gap towards basal ornithischian dinosaurs and pterosaurs possessing filamentous integuments."
If Sciurumimus turns out to be a coelurosaur, it would be "closing the gap" as much as creatures like Sinocalliopteryx and Juravenator do.
I'm still wondering how the heck did pterosaurs even get involved there. We need non-dinosaurian dinosauromorphs or so to be found with any kind of filament(quills, feathers, pycnofibres, whatever) for that part(that pterosaur-dinosaur integument homology thing)to be anything more than "wild speculation". While the coelurosaur thing should not be ruled out, there appears to be a new analysis that appears to support it being no coelurosaur (I cited it above). When counting it, we have one work in favor of the coelurosaur and two against it of which one is extremely recent. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 22, 2014 19:26:49 GMT 5
Well, anything is wild speculation in that case. After all, we haven’t found evidence for non-feathery skin either.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 23, 2014 1:52:04 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 5, 2014 15:42:37 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 8, 2014 21:42:19 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2014 16:30:06 GMT 5
Life: Could I request that you remove the "size was not important", or make an additional entry for it in the poll? Because I do think both large and small dinosaurs could have feathers (its actually a fact; we have dinosaurs with clear evidence of feathers ranging from 25cm to 9m), but that doesn't mean I don't consider size to be important in this regard (it is in modern animals).
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 22, 2014 20:59:52 GMT 5
Life: Could I request that you remove the "size was not important", or make an additional entry for it in the poll? Because I do think both large and small dinosaurs could have feathers (its actually a fact; we have dinosaurs with clear evidence of feathers ranging from 25cm to 9m), but that doesn't mean I don't consider size to be important in this regard (it is in modern animals). I have the option to remove polls, editing not possible unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 22, 2014 22:58:54 GMT 5
Thanks anyway.
For the record, I ticked the last point, because it is the only one consistent with the fossil record (for once, we actually see this reflected in the votes). However I don’t think that means size did’t have a certain relevance, it just obviously doesn’t mean there weren’t both large and small feathered dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 21, 2014 19:32:29 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 2, 2014 21:20:13 GMT 5
As for those people who believe dinosaur feathers are collagenous fibres: dml.cmnh.org/2014Oct/msg00112.htmlAnother laughable argument that originated with those BANDits. Leaving the features of taphonomy and anatomy outlined above aside, why are there supposedly so many animals preserving "support fibers" within ornithodira, but none among reptiles outside it? Why don’t we have ichthyosaurs, which have both skin preservation and definitely no feathers, that preserve these structures if they aren’t external integument? |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Dec 7, 2014 16:31:56 GMT 5
|
|
