tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post5504433582012038718..comments2024-03-23T12:02:36.626-07:00Comments on Mark P. Witton's Blog: They're reptiles Jim, but not as we know themMark Wittonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02524696111911168322noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-68665565478787701592020-11-03T07:55:51.982-08:002020-11-03T07:55:51.982-08:00So,you're just going to ignore the difference ...So,you're just going to ignore the difference in size and environment between beiposaurus and therizinosaurus? All evidence of skin impressions in dinosaurs indicates most if not all large bodied dinosaurs lost the feathers of their ancestral lineage, likely for temperature regulation, climate as well as conserving energy (a therizinosaurus would be big enough that it wouldnt need feathers all over its body, I dont even think they have evidence of quills knobs on their arms, but I may be wrong, they may have been like ostriches and lost some of their coat as they grew). The only large bodied dinosaur with direct evidence of feathers is yutyrannus and that lived in a cold environment, assuming a t-rex (an animal twice the size that lived in a much more tropical environment) had feathers because of this distant relative is bad science, its assuming something is fact with very little basis, that also contradicts what we actually do know about megafauna and large dinosaurs from feathered lineages. The same could be said for anything from deinocheirus to therizinosaurus to triceratops, maybe even gigantoraptor. I'm honestly starting think that many artists depict such oberfeathered creatures simply to either mock the 'anti-feathers' morons, or rile them up. Whilst this may seem like saying 'science doesnt care what you think', that doesnt really work when using bad, unproven, dogmatic science that is basically used as an agenda. And dont get me started on people depicting predators like t-rex or large dromaeosaurs like the intentionally, vibrant cassowary. That contradicts every know terrestrial carnivore, and what we do actually know about dinosaur colours, but keep proliferating misinformation and calling it 'accurate', when it is far from it.<br />Dont get me wrong, I dont like the 'it was better scaly' brigade at all, I've argued with them tirelessly, but the insanely pro-feather brigade is in many ways a hindrance to accurate depictions of dinosaurs in my eyes, as it is also based off of unscientific, dogmatic, ideology which should have no place in accurate palaeoart. Simply put, if you want to depict a real animal, depict it realistically, and dont depict it in a way that contradicts the science/natural world that you say you are depicting, that is not scientific accuracy, nor speculation, that is in all practical sense either ignorant spreading of misinformation or just lying.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15219380602957370856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-16321579314431227902020-09-19T01:47:32.785-07:002020-09-19T01:47:32.785-07:00Instead of saying that birds are a type of animal,...Instead of saying that birds are a type of animal, we should from now on start saying that birds are a type of dinosaur.Francoishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12890090477784124779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-48535592424876239992015-01-01T19:33:22.144-08:002015-01-01T19:33:22.144-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.srisuherman08https://www.blogger.com/profile/08740558176867592450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-55343338748030472672013-11-13T11:15:01.611-08:002013-11-13T11:15:01.611-08:00Great post!Great post!Kevin Righthttp://onlinecasino770.eu/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-76522972965977786552013-05-12T01:32:57.115-07:002013-05-12T01:32:57.115-07:00Well, given that lots of birds hatch naked as well...Well, given that lots of birds hatch naked as well, the one about embryonic enteguement is not really an argument against anything, really.Thomas Diehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05062076693215115940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-4187496930226815232013-05-07T03:36:43.754-07:002013-05-07T03:36:43.754-07:00Hi Hadiaz,
"To be fair, that's not a sur...Hi Hadiaz,<br /><br />"To be fair, that's not a sure thing"<br /><br />OK, but whether <i>Sciurumimus</i> is a carnosaur or not doesn't really change my point: feather-like filaments were present in parts of the dinosaur tree that are very distant to birds. Even if they aren't, they're only one characteristic among many avian-like features we see in <i>all</i> dinosaurs.<br /><br />"Again, to be fair, "the embryonic titanosaurs from Auca Mahuevo have full-body skin casts" ( http://dml.cmnh.org/2011Sep/msg00129.html ). I can't help but wonder why Taylor didn't mention them in his article."<br /><br />True. Sauropods skin impressions remain very rare though and, as discussed <a href="http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/skin-deep-one-skin-fits-all-approach-to.html" rel="nofollow">in this post</a>, we may want to exercise caution when applying the integuments of one or two species to an entire group. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some sauropodomorphs had some feather-like filaments on them somewhere.Mark Wittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02524696111911168322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-24237414903955350192013-05-05T20:20:02.288-07:002013-05-05T20:20:02.288-07:00protofeather are collagen fiber dead skin were you...protofeather are collagen fiber dead skin were you can find in shark dolphin sea snake. sinosauropteryx prove that dinosaurs are crocodilian the fossil show that it had a hepatic piston a crocodilian feature not found in birds allso found diaghragm not found in birds too the diaghragm almost same as a alligator both have complete different lifestyle won is a quadrupedal other is bipedal and much older oh the compsognathus group have no mandibular fenestra that so a bird feature and no crocodilian sphenosuchian protosuchian had them so compsognathus group is a protobird dispite all reptilian feature but that not true no mandibular fenestra is a trait in crocodilian prehistoric alligator allso has no mandibular fenestra another crocodilian link. archaeopteryx feature are very different from compsognathus group archaeopteryx is true bird with no prefrontal bone with special bone in jaw to make upper jaw move very well dinosaur have very poor upper jaw movement and poor arm movement compsognathus group does the same archaeopteryx allso a perching bird a bird feature dinosaurs have croc knee bird have bird knee a fix femur the thigh bone so can help them to fly if it is not fix they will die compsognathus have real ziphodont teeth like crocodilian not the fake kind like the maniraptoran compsognathus teeth replacement is like dinosaurs archaeopteryx is like a bird compsognathus group have small reptilian brain archaeopteryx have large bird brain microraptor is true bird all dromaeosauridae are true birds its not a protobirsd since microraptor is bfore most of dromaeosaur like velociraptor de------- so call proto bird in the past. microraptor have true flight feathers all bird with flight feathers are flying birds allso have flight sternum .its over they found the dinosaur allready its time to move on its tough to keep the scam going with ALL the IMFORMation on the net study crocodilian most of them almost gone and your fault coelophysisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-10131367064578445532013-05-03T17:12:20.877-07:002013-05-03T17:12:20.877-07:00Is it OK if I play Devil's Advocate?
"Fe...Is it OK if I play Devil's Advocate?<br /><br />"Feather-like integuments are now known from megalosaurs (Sciurumimus)"<br /><br />To be fair, that's not a sure thing ( http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2012/07/sciurumimus-albersdoerferi-rauhut-et-al.html ).<br /><br />"And yes, sauropods are not currently known to have any feathers, but this is perhaps due to the scarcity of sauropod skin impressions rather than their genuine absence,"<br /><br />Again, to be fair, "the embryonic titanosaurs from Auca Mahuevo have full-body skin casts" ( http://dml.cmnh.org/2011Sep/msg00129.html ). I can't help but wonder why Taylor didn't mention them in his article.<br /><br />Good post, BTW. When I talk to laypeople, I usually refer to reptiles as "4-legged backboned animals w/keratin scales", dinos as "land-living reptiles w/an erect posture", & birds as "flying (or secondarily flightless) feathered dinos". Does that help?Hadiazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10805346627826158173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-4708963499335259402013-05-03T10:34:40.989-07:002013-05-03T10:34:40.989-07:00Thanks for the comment, Mickey. I erred with the &...Thanks for the comment, Mickey. I erred with the 'sauropsid' comment: 'Sauria' fits my intentions much better, and I must have misremembered the quill knobs in <i>Dromiceiomimus</i>. Post updated accordingly.<br /><br />Interesting thoughts concerning the 'Yixian comes first' speculations. I don't know that using modern BANDits is a fair analogue of Victorian scientists, though, given that their thoughts on bird origins are such a minority. I could be wrong, but I like to think that our Victorian counterparts would see Yixian or equivlanet fossils for what they were. But yes, it would be interesting to see where they drew the line between Aves and Reptilia. At a superficial level at least, is there that much difference between <i>Sinosauropteryx</i> and <i>Archaeopteryx</i>? Would be very interesting to see what definitions they came up with for the different groups.Mark Wittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02524696111911168322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-10961583488819474242013-05-03T10:08:15.716-07:002013-05-03T10:08:15.716-07:00Hi jck,
Thanks for the comment. As mentioned abov...Hi jck,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. As mentioned above, all dinosaurs - including ornithischians and sauropodomoprhs - share a suite of features with birds: <br /><br />"Birds also offer scaly skin, terrestrial habits and egg laying to dinosaurs, as well as filamentous integuments, rapid growth, extensive systems of air sacs in the body and neck, erect stances, long necks, and long limbs with digitigrade extremities (among many more detailed aspects of their anatomy)."<br /><br />Granted, some of these features may be secondarily lost in some lineages (no-one seems to know why ornithischians lack pneumatised postcranial skeletons for instance), but they were at least there in dinosaur ancestry. Mark Wittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02524696111911168322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-31773047525773123972013-04-27T23:02:48.913-07:002013-04-27T23:02:48.913-07:00Pedant alert! Reptilia is actually not the same a...Pedant alert! Reptilia is actually not the same as Sauropsida. Sauropsida is a stem-based group, so will always be more inclusive than the node-based Reptilia. Mesosaurs may be non-reptilian sauropsids, for instance. Or if turtles are diapsids and thus there are no living proganosaurs, all non-saurian sauropsids would be outside Reptilia, such as pareisaurs, Youngina and Petrolacosaurus.<br /><br />Also, the new Dromiceiomimus remains don't actually have quill knobs on the ulna, just carbonized markings.<br /><br />Interesting thought experiment re: Yixian fossils being found first, but if I had to guess I'd say oviraptorosaurs and paravians would be interpreted as birds, but not Sinosauropteryx, Yutyrannus or Tianyulong. The complete skeleton of Compsognathus was known in 1859 after all, and the feathers of Sinosauropteryx aren't obvious enough to convince BANDits today. Also, my impression is that back in the 1800s, classification was more subjective and fluid, and groups were more poorly known of course. So they might not have had much of an issue with a bird-like feathered group of reptiles that was just another blob leading out of Eosuchia and unrelated to Aves.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-61439761016988525982013-04-27T13:06:35.885-07:002013-04-27T13:06:35.885-07:00Therizinosaurus as a giant pigeon is awesome. Seei...Therizinosaurus as a giant pigeon is awesome. Seeing dinosaurs as more birdlike than reptilian makes sense to me. It's pretty easy to visualize theropods as birdlike. What about sauropods or ornithischians? Are there specific characteristics that we could consider as birdlike?jckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11451191061242331795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-26771411563104400612013-04-26T01:08:14.142-07:002013-04-26T01:08:14.142-07:00"imagine that the Liaoning dinosaurs would ha..."imagine that the Liaoning dinosaurs would have been the first to be discovered."<br /><br />That's more of less the thought that inspired this essay. And yes, who knows what our Victorian counterparts would have made of those specimens? Reptile, bird, or a whole new class of animal? If a maniraptoran, something like <i>Sinosauropteryx</i> was the first, perhaps they'd have labelled it the 'first bird' as they did with <i>Archaeopteryx</i>. But as you say, what if it had been <i>Tianyulong</i> or <i>Yutyrannus</i>? It's harder to fit them into the Aves mould, as it is with pterosuars. I think the latter at least would definitely remain classed outside of Aves, but the discovery of their integument would have shaken up some prominent Victorian scientists. Richard Owen, for instance, was convinced that pterosaurs would be scaly because of their reptilian heritage, and would not entertain contrary thoughts by Harry Seeley, who thought otherwise. If nothing else, early discovery of the Liaoning deposits would have blurred the concepts of Reptilia and Aves considerably. I wonder what sort of part these deposits would have played in discussions of natural selection and evolution?Mark Wittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02524696111911168322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-34019590893840628842013-04-25T10:16:03.714-07:002013-04-25T10:16:03.714-07:00Thank you for this, I think, somewhat philosophica...Thank you for this, I think, somewhat philosophical post. I too have at times wondered what we would have made of dinosaurs if our earliest discovered fossils had been different ones. For example, imagine that the Liaoning dinosaurs would have been the first to be discovered. Surely, 19th century naturalists would have classified *Sinosauropteryx* or even *Tianyulong* as birds rather than as reptiles? Had that happened, 'class Aves' might have been understood to mean and include all dinosaurs throughout the 20th century. What do you think those same naturalists would have made of Liaoning pterosaurs with their obvious wings and prominent integument? Would those too have been considered birds? BrianLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17880867575515761505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-55455157126546683012013-04-25T07:21:48.913-07:002013-04-25T07:21:48.913-07:00Hi Oliver,
Thanks for the comment. Feather-like i...Hi Oliver,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. Feather-like integuments are now known from megalosaurs (<i>Sciurumimus</i>) and basal ornithischians (<i>Tianyulong</i>), so they could fit under the 'bird relative' umbrella as well. And yes, sauropods are not currently known to have any feathers, but this is perhaps due to the scarcity of sauropod skin impressions rather than their genuine absence, as Mike Taylor explains over at <a href="http://www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com/news/editorial/diplodocus-sauropods-with-feathers/" rel="nofollow">Walking with Dinosaurs</a>. Mark Wittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02524696111911168322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-60213979456739313042013-04-25T06:03:52.165-07:002013-04-25T06:03:52.165-07:00Good article ! ''Bird-relative'' c...Good article ! ''Bird-relative'' can be applied to coelurosaurians,but in the case of Ornitischians/Sauropods/basal Tetanurids (they share some features in with birds but no avian-like integuments) ? <br /><br />OliverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com