Living Dinosaurs!

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,996

You've misunderstood there Jim, you've said as much yourself when you say they're an 'offshoot of theropods', they are therapods. Google Archosaurs, it'll help clear it up.

Another thing I think you've been mislead by some of the links you've provided there, read the Smithsonian link again, it doesn't say what you seem to think it does, in any case the important question isn't whether any specific tyrannosaur species had feathers but whether feathers were present anywhere in their lineage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Brig

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Dec 23, 2014
Messages
691
I don't pretend to be an expert on dinosaurs. But it does appear the problem with feathers is quite similar to the question of warm blood. That argument went on for years and is still being contested by some.
 

Analis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,625
You've misunderstood there Jim, you've said as much yourself when you say they're an 'offshoot of theropods', they are therapods. Google Archosaurs, it'll help clear it up.

Another thing I think you've been mislead by some of the links you've provided there, read the Smithsonian link again, it doesn't say what you seem to think it does, in any case the important question isn't whether any specific tyrannosaur species had feathers but whether feathers were present anywhere in their lineage.

Mark Witton, who has become a kind of a reference on matters of controversies around dinosaur skins, attempted to give a balanced presentation of the tyrannosaurid discoveries. As it emerges, things are not easy to ascertain, and no conclusion can be drawn. Tyranosaurids whose fossilized patches of scaly skin are known (isolated patches as should be insisted on) could well have been feathered too. The only reasonable certainty is that tyrannosaur ancestors were fluffy. The article and associated discussions also stresses that the nature of dinosaur scales is in itself problematic, as is shown by extant members of the group :
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.fr/2017/06/revenge-of-scaly-tyrannosaurus.html

The revanche of the scaly tyrannosaur, but not quite so.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,996
Mark Witton, who has become a kind of a reference on matters of controversies around dinosaur skins, attempted to give a balanced presentation of the tyrannosaurid discoveries. As it emerges, things are not easy to ascertain, and no conclusion can be drawn. Tyranosaurids whose fossilized patches of scaly skin are known (isolated patches as should be insisted on) could well have been feathered too. The only reasonable certainty is that tyrannosaur ancestors were fluffy. The article and associated discussions also stresses that the nature of dinosaur scales is in itself problematic, as is shown by extant members of the group :
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.fr/2017/06/revenge-of-scaly-tyrannosaurus.html

The revanche of the scaly tyrannosaur, but not quite so.

I've not read Mark Witton's take on it, but I have listened to his mates Darren Naish and Jon Conway's version, and all seem to be in complete agreement. As you say, it's the presence of fluff on the lineage that's important.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,996
I don't pretend to be an expert on dinosaurs. But it does appear the problem with feathers is quite similar to the question of warm blood. That argument went on for years and is still being contested by some.

No, nor me. They're OK but not a subject that grabs me. 'Warm bloodedness' is though, but I lack the time or technical knowledge to pursue it at any length.

To be honest it's such a complicated area, and the concept of entire classes of animals all being one or the other is false. Take us, not all mammals are 'warm blooded', not even all Eutherian mammals are. Montremes aren't, unless they're reproducing, then they are. While some reptiles (excluding birds) including at least one species of python will also elevate it's body temperature by shivering when brooding, very similar to a Monotreme. Even the terms warm blooded/cold blooded are redundant, it's a spectrum. But about non avialan dinosaurs, I doubt very much if something like a microraptor and an Argentinosuarus regulated their internal temperature in anything like the same way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Jim

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
1,209
Location
NYS, USA
my 2-cents (for whatever it's worth) is that nobody was there, so some conjecture unavoidable concerning paleontology. Unlike some other sciences (i.e.: electro-magnetics, chemistry, modern-day botany, modern-day zoology, etc.) one cannot prove things so exactly-repeatable in a laboratory or exact field analysis.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,996
my 2-cents (for whatever it's worth) is that nobody was there, so some conjecture unavoidable concerning paleontology. Unlike some other sciences (i.e.: electro-magnetics, chemistry, modern-day botany, modern-day zoology, etc.) one cannot prove things so exactly-repeatable in a laboratory or exact field analysis.

Yeah. Even with animals that we co existed with recently that have since gone extinct it's not clear. There are so many complex questions about any species we're lucky to answer just a few.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Bullseye

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
940
There are some taxonomists that are trying to classify birds as dinosaurs, but as the definition of a species becomes even more complicated and messy it seems to be there are very few strait forward groupings.
 

Jim

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
1,209
Location
NYS, USA
There are some taxonomists that are trying to classify birds as dinosaurs, but as the definition of a species becomes even more complicated and messy it seems to be there are very few strait forward groupings.
Although theropods are likely related to birds (as per above postings). They are still officially classified as reptiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
 

Analis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,625
No, nor me. They're OK but not a subject that grabs me. 'Warm bloodedness' is though, but I lack the time or technical knowledge to pursue it at any length.

To be honest it's such a complicated area, and the concept of entire classes of animals all being one or the other is false. Take us, not all mammals are 'warm blooded', not even all Eutherian mammals are. Montremes aren't, unless they're reproducing, then they are. While some reptiles (excluding birds) including at least one species of python will also elevate it's body temperature by shivering when brooding, very similar to a Monotreme. Even the terms warm blooded/cold blooded are redundant, it's a spectrum. But about non avialan dinosaurs, I doubt very much if something like a microraptor and an Argentinosuarus regulated their internal temperature in anything like the same way.

I agree with you relating to the matter of the existence of wide variations of the ability to maintain or not metabolic temperatures within tetrapod 'classes'. However, as far as I know, lack of homeothermy is not true of all monotrems, only of echidnas. Platypus is as able to maintain a constant temperature as the average eutherian, including in cold waters. Echidnas are more heterothermic, but I suppose that it has more to do with their ecological niche, as the same is true of armadillos, and I suppose of pangolins, as they are slow and lack insulatory covering (and it could too be true of aardvarks, as the same feature applies to them). Edentates (or xenartrans), as an order, are the most heterothermic of eutherians. Giant eutherians, as elephants and rhinos, have a lower metabolic rate than smaller ones, as their body mass maintains internal heat, hence their loss of insulatory covering, and are despite this constantly in danger of overheating, having to resort to various tactics to get rid of excess heat (elephants using their large ears, both bathing abundantly). Mesozoic dinosaurs certainly had the same variety of metabolisms and solutions (long necks and tails as well alongside lower metabolism may have played the same role for giant sauropods than ears for elephants).

Although theropods are likely related to birds (as per above postings). They are still officially classified as reptiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

Theropods are not reptiles, not more than dinosaurs, as they lack any of their defining features. I don't use wikipedia, as it is a refuge for all kinds of charlatans, some influent, nonetheless they're backward characters who are behind their times by at least one century and a half. Many more relevant paleontologists have already reached the next level and acknowledged them as a full class, including birds (exactely as bats are mamals).
 
Last edited:

Jim

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
1,209
Location
NYS, USA
I agree with you relating to the matter of the existence of wide variations of the ability to maintain or not metabolic temperatures within tetrapod 'classes'. However, as far as I know, lack of homeothermy is not true of all monotrems, only of echidnas. Platypus is as able to maintain a constant temperature as the average eutherian, including in cold waters. Echidnas are more heterothermic, but I suppose that it has more to do with their ecological niche, as the same is true of armadillos, and I suppose of pangolins, as they are slow and lack insulatory covering (and it could too be true of aardvarks, as the same feature applies to them). Edentates (or xenartrans), as an order, are the most heterothermic of eutherians. Giant eutherians, as elephants and rhinos, have a lower metabolic rate than smaller ones, as their body mass maintains internal heat, hence their loss of insluatory covering, and are despite this constantly in danger of overheating, having to resort to various tactics to get rid of excess heat (elephants using their large ears, bothbathing abundantly). Mesozoic dinosaurs certainly had the same variety of metabolisms and solutions (long necks and tails as well alongside lower metabolism may have played the same role for giant sauropods than ears for elephants).



Theropods are not reptiles, not more than dinosaurs, as they lack any of their defining features. I don't use wikipedia, as it is a refuge for all kinds of charlatans, some influent, nonetheless they're backward characters who are behind their times by at least one century and a half. Many more relevant paleontologists have already reached the next level and acknowledged them as a full class, including birds (exactely as bats are mamals).

(I can't vouch for Wikipedia as far as paleontology goes, "not being a paleontologist". However I disagree with your assessment of Wikipedia as far as the science of E-M is concerned. Being an electrical engineer I've found it to be both useful and accurate.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,996
(I can't vouch for Wikipedia as far as paleontology goes, "not being a paleontologist". However I disagree with your assessment of Wikipedia as far as the science of E-M is concerned. Being an electrical engineer I've found it to be both useful and accurate.

That's the thing, it can be really good and personally I use it all the time, but it can also be wrong, or misleading, the trouble is unless you know the subject you don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,996
I agree with you relating to the matter of the existence of wide variations of the ability to maintain or not metabolic temperatures within tetrapod 'classes'. However, as far as I know, lack of homeothermy is not true of all monotrems, only of echidnas. Platypus is as able to maintain a constant temperature as the average eutherian, including in cold waters. Echidnas are more heterothermic, but I suppose that it has more to do with their ecological niche, as the same is true of armadillos, and I suppose of pangolins, as they are slow and lack insulatory covering (and it could too be true of aardvarks, as the same feature applies to them). Edentates (or xenartrans), as an order, are the most heterothermic of eutherians. Giant eutherians, as elephants and rhinos, have a lower metabolic rate than smaller ones, as their body mass maintains internal heat, hence their loss of insulatory covering, and are despite this constantly in danger of overheating, having to resort to various tactics to get rid of excess heat (elephants using their large ears, both bathing abundantly). Mesozoic dinosaurs certainly had the same variety of metabolisms and solutions (long necks and tails as well alongside lower metabolism may have played the same role for giant sauropods than ears for elephants).



Theropods are not reptiles, not more than dinosaurs, as they lack any of their defining features. I don't use wikipedia, as it is a refuge for all kinds of charlatans, some influent, nonetheless they're backward characters who are behind their times by at least one century and a half. Many more relevant paleontologists have already reached the next level and acknowledged them as a full class, including birds (exactely as bats are mamals).

Excellent post. And I agree with everything said. I do tend to think of Monotremes as echidna's, I don't know why I forget the platypus, but if I think of the word 'Monotreme' I just see a muddy spiny thing. They are a fascinating group.

Reptiles is a funny term, I sometimes think that it's so misleading it needs quietly dropping. Diapsid, might be better?
 

Brig

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Dec 23, 2014
Messages
691
With new finds in China it would appear to be a rather remarkable progression from a dinosaur type "reptile" to a winged "but nonflying" type of dinosaur or reptile, to a winged and feathered flying and very toothy type flying nightmare to the beaked but still toothy reptile (dinosaur) to the beaked bird of today. Seems to me to be the last of the dinosaurs. Have you ever met a toothed chicken? My grandfather raised chickens on his farm and he got the rare but occasional toothed beak chicken. Just nubbins but would still classify as teeth. Makes you wonder how recently toothed reptiles (flying dinosaurs) actually disappeared.
 

Iris

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,459
Geese have serrations called tomia.
c1ZAbGP.png
 

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
7,532
Location
Wessex and Mercia
Geese's pseudoteeth or tomia are probably the most dramatic, but there's also the tooth-billed bowerbird with small but well-formed tomia at the tip of its beak and some species of penguin have very similar tomia to geese. My favourite though has to be the comically prehistoric looking Toucan, with the pale-coloured serrations appearing very tooth-like.

IMG_0367.JPG
 

Jim

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
1,209
Location
NYS, USA
With new finds in China it would appear to be a rather remarkable progression from a dinosaur type "reptile" to a winged "but nonflying" type of dinosaur or reptile, to a winged and feathered flying and very toothy type flying nightmare to the beaked but still toothy reptile (dinosaur) to the beaked bird of today. Seems to me to be the last of the dinosaurs. Have you ever met a toothed chicken? My grandfather raised chickens on his farm and he got the rare but occasional toothed beak chicken. Just nubbins but would still classify as teeth. Makes you wonder how recently toothed reptiles (flying dinosaurs) actually disappeared.
Pterosaurs weren't dinosaurs but were an entirely separate branch of reptiles. They are not related to birds. In fact they have a few similarities with bats (type of hair being furry) All Pterosaurs dies out around the end of the Cretaceous period.
 

Peripart

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
6,427
Here's the original clip:

What shameless fibbing from the previous Youtube video linked! Claiming to be an original sighting (which wasn't that convincing, but still), but clearly nicked from the film here. I did think at the time that the "creature"s wings were very stiff, and this confirms why.
 

Brig

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Dec 23, 2014
Messages
691
Gee Whiz, Jim, I never said anything about Pterosaurs. I was talking about hens teeth. Even I know there is no relationship between birds and Pterosaurs. Seems from our response that proto teeth are still fairly common in some birds. By the way when scientists ran a DNA test on some soft tissue supposedly taken from a fossil T-Rex, the nearest relative seemed to be the common chicken. I wonder if T-Rex steaks would have tasted like chicken?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
48,153
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Gee Whiz, Jim, I never said anything about Pterosaurs. I was talking about hens teeth. Even I know there is no relationship between birds and Pterosaurs. Seems from our response that proto teeth are still fairly common in some birds. By the way when scientists ran a DNA test on some soft tissue supposedly taken from a fossil T-Rex, the nearest relative seemed to be the common chicken. I wonder if T-Rex steaks would have tasted like chicken?
You betcha they would!
Just don't give any ideas to KFC...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
7,532
Location
Wessex and Mercia
"Just don't give any ideas to KFC..."

I can picture the advert now: "Get your teeth around the Colonel's "Tea Rex" bargain basket."
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
54,458
Location
Eblana
"Just don't give any ideas to KFC..."

I can picture the advert now: "Get your teeth around the Colonel's "Tea Rex" bargain basket."

Wasn't there a series in 2000 AD about time travellers rounding up dinosaurs and bringing them back to the 21st century for just that?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
48,153
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Wasn't there a series in 2000 AD about time travellers rounding up dinosaurs and bringing them back to the 21st century for just that?
I remember that! It was called 'Flesh' or something like that.
 
Top