tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post8403099604707047083..comments2024-03-10T06:42:57.798-07:00Comments on Raptormaniacs: Maniraptor Feathers Part VI: Lizard-faced Monsters in Gorilla SuitsAlbertonykushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-73064711905640168442017-07-21T10:50:28.627-07:002017-07-21T10:50:28.627-07:00It is a modern chicken, but not a serious drawing ...It is a modern chicken, but not a serious drawing of one. It is meant to make fun of the way many extinct feathered dinosaurs are commonly (but incorrectly) drawn by drawing a chicken in the same way.Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-4708657559675326102017-07-21T02:13:09.797-07:002017-07-21T02:13:09.797-07:00Nice work on the (early looking) chicken.
Is it su...Nice work on the (early looking) chicken.<br />Is it supposed to be a today chicken or early chicken??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-10812142012671245002017-07-20T06:53:00.271-07:002017-07-20T06:53:00.271-07:00The early bird catches the worm.
The early chicken...The early bird catches the worm.<br />The early chicken catches the seed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-70281227373329196632013-07-31T07:17:15.031-07:002013-07-31T07:17:15.031-07:00Ok. It was only a my guess, anyway :-)Ok. It was only a my guess, anyway :-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396504386615815210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-49596983421519116972013-07-31T05:12:35.482-07:002013-07-31T05:12:35.482-07:00I'm not particularly convinced there. A simple...I'm not particularly convinced there. A simpler explanation could be that <i>Jianchangosaurus</i> had longer EBFFs than <i>Beipiaosaurus</i> (or individual variation if they're the same thing). But ultimately more specimens are required to support or falsify the hypothesis.Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-73625981580385138332013-07-31T03:20:54.156-07:002013-07-31T03:20:54.156-07:00*I meant PROPORTIONALLY, not slightly.*I meant PROPORTIONALLY, not slightly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396504386615815210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-90791454761146542952013-07-31T03:19:22.055-07:002013-07-31T03:19:22.055-07:00(following comment is by google translate):
I agre...(following comment is by google translate):<br />I agree with you, but I still think that there might have been a reversal ontogenetic somewhere in Maniraptora concerning the plumage. I think this because in addition to Ornithomimus we also have evidence of Jianchangosaurus (Therizinosauria, a more derived clade then Ornithomimosauria) with traces of carbonic plumage slightly longer than that of IVPP V11559's EBFF. And while Beipiaosaurus is known for adult specimens, Jianchangosaurus is ontogenetically immature. Mine is just a guess, but I think it's possible that basal Maniraptoriformes had ontogenetic development of the plumage reverse to that of those evolved (such as birds). And since Tyrannosauroidea is a clade just outside Maniraptoriformes, I assume that they also had a development of the plumage reverse to the avian one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396504386615815210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-88963502947160546642013-07-25T19:12:03.724-07:002013-07-25T19:12:03.724-07:00That was a great find, though I don't think it...That was a great find, though I don't think it necessarily has any new implications for ontogenetic change in tyrannosaurid feathers. The type of change that <i>Ornithomimus</i>/<i>Dromiceiomimus</i> demonstrates is significant in that it's unknown in other coelurosaurs, but the fact that feathers are more developed in adults has always been known (e.g.: in modern birds).Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-1640578555446392112013-07-25T13:17:43.477-07:002013-07-25T13:17:43.477-07:00If you do, don't you think Ornithomimus is an ...If you do, don't you think Ornithomimus is an evidence of how the Coelurosauria (at least those basal) the plumage of adults is even more developed than that of juveniles?<br /> - Darla K. Zelenitsky, François Therrien, Gregory M. Erickson, Christopher L. DeBuhr, Yoshitsugu Kobayashi, David A. Eberth, and Frank Hadfield (2012) Feathered Non-Avian Dinosaurs from North America Provide Insight into Wing Origins. Science 338(6106): 510-514 -Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396504386615815210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-21485769190422538172012-04-29T04:01:42.590-07:002012-04-29T04:01:42.590-07:00I don't have Foth's paper so I can't c...I don't have Foth's paper so I can't comment on it (only able to find the abstract). But all that I was saying is Scott referred these humeral feathers as non-pennaceous feathers (even in his DML 2010 post form your link, he was using the term "dinofuzz" for these unbranched structures). Since that was what you were referring to at the beginning "...I would probably clarify "tertials" to mean "flight feathers" in the future, as that appeared to be what was meant when I first read that Archaeopteryx lacked "tertials" (e.g.: by Scott Hartman http://dml.cmnh.org/2010Nov/msg00183.html)...". My post wasn't trying to convince or persuade you whether these feathers should be pennaceous or not but merely pointing out that you might have misinterpreted what Scott was saying in that particular post.ALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00199192766771698603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-73442399825792748062012-04-29T02:23:36.279-07:002012-04-29T02:23:36.279-07:00I'm still somewhat doubtful as the study on cr...I'm still somewhat doubtful as the study on crushed feathers referenced in this post was published online in 2011, so unless Scott knew about the results of the study in 2007 or came to the same conclusion as it, it might have simply been assumed that the humeral feathers were non pennaceous due to their different preserved texture. That study also showed that crushed body feathers are essentially indistinguishable from most of the supposedly simpler feathers preserved on fossils. However, you bring up a good point regarding the proximity of the humeral feathers to definitely pennaceous feathers. Plumaceous feathers sounds like a safe bet.Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-24674741731114225032012-04-29T02:10:09.467-07:002012-04-29T02:10:09.467-07:00I was under the impression that the DML post is ba...I was under the impression that the DML post is based on his (Scott's) SVP poster and in his own words on the poster he said "...the integumentary structures proximal to the elbow are clearly distinguishable from the pennaceous feather impressions of the distal forelimbs... in contrast, the elements associated with the humeri were made by thinner,more flexible structures that lacked a barb and rachis morphology... consistent with both plumulaceous feathers and a more primitive "fur-like"...". The poster pretty much implies that these are just non-pennaceous feathers. It is rather unusual if these humeri feathers on the WDC-CSG-100 are crushed pennaceous feathers since proper pennaceous feathers are also found with the same specimen especially in very close proximity. Take a look at the specimen and you'll see what I mean (the texture between these feathers are different). If you don't like the term "non-pennaceous" perhaps you can also use plumulaceous or even "fur-like"... since at the moment that is what they are.ALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00199192766771698603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-46841541704519792622012-04-28T09:40:40.995-07:002012-04-28T09:40:40.995-07:00I see. Though as I note in this post, the seemingl...I see. Though as I note in this post, the seemingly simple body feathers of non-pygostylian aviremigians may well be crushed pennaceous feathers after all, so "non pennaceous" might not be the best way to refer to them.Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-42528109477145012652012-04-28T09:24:30.378-07:002012-04-28T09:24:30.378-07:00I just had a quick look at Scott's Archaeopter...I just had a quick look at Scott's Archaeopteryx Thermopolis specimen SVP 2007 poster. The kind of tertials that he was referring to is just plain pennaceous feathers which could be flight feathers (remiges) or even contour feathers. Perhaps you could use the term "non-pennaceous" feathers in your future posts to describe these humeral feathers.ALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00199192766771698603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-48141228426068320992012-04-27T20:31:03.371-07:002012-04-27T20:31:03.371-07:00No worries. I would probably clarify "tertial...No worries. I would probably clarify "tertials" to mean "flight feathers" in the future, as that appeared to be what was meant when I first read that <i>Archaeopteryx</i> lacked "tertials" (e.g.: by Scott Hartman http://dml.cmnh.org/2010Nov/msg00183.html). Not sure what term, if anything, one should use when referring to the non-flight humeral feathers either.Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-19347492538592792032012-04-27T10:21:15.831-07:002012-04-27T10:21:15.831-07:00The reason I ask is because in Wellnhofer's bo...The reason I ask is because in Wellnhofer's book "Archaeopteryx the icon of evolution" he mentioned the following passage "...exact number of secondaries cannot be counted,... Marked, fuzzy furrows at the elbow joint may stem from the tertiaies..." about the Thermopolis specimen (WDC-CSG-100). It is clear that these feathers are more like semiplumes (my bad in saying contour feathers from my previous post) rather than proper remiges but they are regarded as possible "tertiaies" also. So when you were talking about (...Non-avian maniraptors and basal avialians don't appear to have had tertials...) the lack of tertiaies in these animals I just found it odd. I'm not sure what else could you have called these humeral feathers that trail along the posterior margin of the wings... <br /><br />Yeah, it's quite an old post. Unfortunately I just come across it today... (Sorry I'm a bit late...)ALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00199192766771698603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-61979538801880125452012-04-27T07:43:55.648-07:002012-04-27T07:43:55.648-07:00That's certainly a good point as well, and som...That's certainly a good point as well, and something I'd probably mention if I were to update this post. (I don't usually update old blog posts though.)<br /><br />By tertial here I mean essentially full-blown flight feathers. I'm aware that shorter feathers on the humerus are indeed known for non-pygostylian maniraptors.Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-50375797424807025762012-04-27T07:28:59.750-07:002012-04-27T07:28:59.750-07:00And one more thing with the feather preservation i...And one more thing with the feather preservation is that under normal circumstances when a bird dies its skin tends to get dehydrated so very often their feathers puffed up due to the shrinkage of its skin (such as http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_thbRorvScz4/TLSy_-p3jAI/AAAAAAAACTo/JIeHEE4lOJ8/s1600/dead-bird.jpg, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_thbRorvScz4/TL81y4k8AuI/AAAAAAAACUY/yRpjyo8lB80/s1600/dead_bird_blue.jpg, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GNeVEvZ8TmU/Soqgd72krKI/AAAAAAAABZo/ARrjuxu9w3s/s1600-h/RotBird.jpg and also this http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_thbRorvScz4/TEi3TW4m5uI/AAAAAAAACKM/wBUnqlGdL2Q/s1600/dead-bird-2.JPG). And for this reason, fossilized integuments on dinosaurs would tend to give the illusion of the animal being slightly more fluffier in life as well. <br /><br />Before I forget, I would also like to ask what actually constitute a tertial feather and do they have to be vaned or asymmetrical? If the answer is just any feathers attached to the humerus, then we do have evidence of tertial on these animals like Archaeopteryx (WDC-CSG-100) and these feathers are more like contour feathers.ALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00199192766771698603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-731826721729592322012-04-27T01:58:37.973-07:002012-04-27T01:58:37.973-07:00Oh yes, plumage thickness varies even among modern...Oh yes, plumage thickness varies even among modern birds and whether the feathers are puffed up or not. I don't intend to imply that all feathered dinosaurs should be depicted as extreme as the owl above, just that we probably wouldn't see all the body contours of Mesozoic feathered dinosaurs as sharply defined as it often is in art.<br /><br />Thanks for the ref!Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-2497652305007389032012-04-26T20:58:33.280-07:002012-04-26T20:58:33.280-07:00Here is another example on how fluffy these animal...Here is another example on how fluffy these animals could be (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/feathersorientation.jpg/) while it is probably true for a lot of species that they are very fluffy in live but sometimes it also depends on whether their feathers are puffed out or not. See how the outline changes on the Song Sparrow, you can probably see the outline of the body quite well when the feathers are down (part of the body was obscure by the wings of course) and if this is an example of a heron than you would probably see the rough outline of the neck vertebrae as well. So what I'm trying to say is it isn't necessary wrong even if a drawing doesn't go as far as what is suggested in your example. <br /><br />As for the pronation query you probably should also check this reference out:<br /><br />Gishlick, A.D. (2001). "The function of the manus and forelimb of Deinonychus antirrhopus and its importance for the origin of avian flight". In Gauthier, J. and Gall, L.F.. New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds. New Haven: Yale Peabody Museum. pp. 301–318.ALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00199192766771698603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-34907797153852144822011-11-08T18:43:09.177-08:002011-11-08T18:43:09.177-08:00Thanks. The full reference is Senter, P. (2006). &...Thanks. The full reference is Senter, P. (2006). "Comparison of Forelimb Function Between Deinonychus And Bambiraptor (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae)". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26 (4): 897–906. <br /><br />I will probably go and edit all these older posts with full citations when I have time.Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-64809469149471365492011-11-08T14:04:33.727-08:002011-11-08T14:04:33.727-08:00Good article. Can you give us the Senter 2006 refe...Good article. Can you give us the Senter 2006 reference please?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-54944003826966191412011-09-12T23:50:32.446-07:002011-09-12T23:50:32.446-07:00Young deinonychosaurs appear to have been able to ...Young deinonychosaurs appear to have been able to run around after hatching, so they were precocial.Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-83147981885775498332011-09-12T22:14:04.657-07:002011-09-12T22:14:04.657-07:00deinonychosaurs babies were helpless or mobiledeinonychosaurs babies were helpless or mobileAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8893026474426881196.post-57940799355802382602011-07-08T01:58:51.394-07:002011-07-08T01:58:51.394-07:00I can accept tyrannosaurids having more feathers a...I can accept tyrannosaurids having more feathers as juveniles than as adults. I don't really buy a shift from completely feathered juvenile to completely scaly adult, though. If the juvies had feathers, I would guess that the adults would've still had at least some feathers, even if just a vestigial covering, or at the very least naked skin. (And, in fact, we know of naked skin impressions from Gorgosaurus.)Albertonykushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345306530772709064noreply@blogger.com