|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 8, 2015 17:24:11 GMT 5
rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/6/20150229.figures-onlyThis paper warns about making a priori assumptions about dinosaurian filament homologies, but then goes on to make the unsupported a priori assumption that pterosaurs were ancestrally scaly, not feathered (while there is no direct evidence for or against homology, their presence on primitive pterosaurs and noted resemblance to the filaments of theropods would suggest it, or at the very least suggest an equal chance of pterosaurs being ancestrally feathered as them being ancestrally scaly). Of those combinations that included pterosaurs as ancestrally fuzzy, all recovered filaments as the most likely primitive condition for dinosaurs. They also seem to arbitrarily ignore sources that note possible homologies between ornithischian and saurischian filaments (e.g. the Kulindadromeus and Tianyulong descriptions) and even cites claims about filaments actually being collagen fibres as if they were a serious scientific possibility (they are not, as countless people, including those who actually examined the structures in person, will and do tell you). As commendable as I find the attempt, I must say their approach to some relevant variables doesn’t seem very objective.
|
|
drone
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 53 
|
Post by drone on Jun 12, 2015 16:13:10 GMT 5
Cladogram of several integuments of major dinosaur clades:  Prado GMEM, Anelli LE, Romero GR. (2015) New occurrences of fossilized feathers: systematics, taphonomy, and paleoecology of the Santana Formation of the Araripe Basin (Cretaceous), NE, Brazil. PeerJ PrePrints 3:e1425 dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1170v1 |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 24, 2015 2:47:06 GMT 5
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 24, 2015 3:09:05 GMT 5
Ha for real. It's a commonly known that dromeosaurids had feathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Jun 24, 2015 15:24:23 GMT 5
Lonely as it may be, I am not ashamed in holding a different stance than the majority. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 24, 2015 15:31:49 GMT 5
And apparently you are not ashamed of holding a stance that is scientifically untenable either.
And yes, the evidence is solid. You don’t need to find feathers with Deinonychus in order to know it was feathered any more than we need to find hair with Smilodon to know it had fur.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 17:30:01 GMT 5
Lonely as it may be, I am not ashamed in holding a different stance than the majority. Do you know why the majority holds this stance? Because this stance is actually scientifically supported. This isn't some commonly-held factoid, it's actual scientific knowledge that dromaeosaurs were feathered. |
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 24, 2015 17:55:01 GMT 5
It seems as if he wants to stand alone just for the heck of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 18:39:22 GMT 5
It seems as if he wants to stand alone just for the heck of it. I think he has feelings for retrosaurs. |
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 24, 2015 19:31:26 GMT 5
It's clear he does. I think I remember him claiming that scaly theropods are the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 18, 2015 4:07:40 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2015 21:07:23 GMT 5
It's most likely a basal coelurosaur or so, the formations in the Liaoning region date from the Early Cretaceous. Based on what is known from the fossil record, coelophysoids have already long died out, roughly between ~50-60 million years before the Liaoning region formations.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 19, 2015 0:04:43 GMT 5
"Liaoning", not "Jehol group". Liaoning is larger than England, not all sediments exposed there are the same age. The Tiaojishan and Lanqi formations for example are from the middle Jurassic, and that’s only scratching the surface. There are Triassic, Palaeozoic and even Precambrian Formations in Liaoning→.I’m not saying its fact (my biggest concern it that it’s just a typo, and someone meant to write "compsognathid" but typed "coelophysoid"), just that it’s an interesting hint we can’t dismiss. Also, age isn’t a diagnostic feature. |
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Aug 19, 2015 3:40:09 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 19, 2015 3:55:47 GMT 5
^I already posted that. theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/24081/threadSeveral hints are also worth something imo, at some point it becomes more parsimonious to assume that they result from the actual existence of what they hint at than that they are alltogether unreliable. There’s nothing wrong with the hypothesis that "dilophosaurs" were fuzzy to begin with, that there are plausible alternative explanations for the trace fossils doesn’t change or invalidate the relevance of the fact that they are consistent with, and in support of that hypothesis. Of course a track without "feather impressions" would also be consistent, since the chances of preservation are slim (and they might not be on the necessary body region to begin with), but once more, its a matter of parsimony. |
|
