Talk:Feathered dinosaurs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Archaeopteryx 2 Archaeopteryx a fake? 3 Needs a rewrite for clarity 4 "Archaeoraptor" 5 There is no "conclusive evidence" 6 Archaeovolans --> Yanornis 7 Referencing 8 contradiction 9 no room for criticism

[edit] Archaeopteryx

"Also, many people think "feathered dinosaurs" are acually birds" Where is the support for this? Who are these "many people" Where is the link to support that many people think this? Removeing this, as it's at best personal opinion of whoever added it untill supporting evidence is atributted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilMuppet (talk • contribs) 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This page, and all other pages related to dinosaurs need to compensate for this finding: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1764136,00.html

This page needs some more information on where Archaeopteryx fits into the picture. Most of the dinosaurs discussed here are Cretaceous beasts, yet Archaeopteryx, a more bird-like animal, was already happily flying around in the Jurassic. How do we then trace a line of descent from birds through dinosaurs? It's a bit confusing for the non-specialist. The Singing Badger 15:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am a non-specialist, and this is my understanding: An unknown branch of theropods first devloped primitive feather-structures (prob sometime in the jurassic). this gave rise to various feathered dinosaurs, some of whose feathers developed into flight feathers. an unknown branch of these theropods, prob a sister group to maniraptors, gave rise to the birds. Note that feathers may have been much more wide-spread, and appeared much earlier, but it is only the fine fossil quality of Liaoning that has preserved the evidence. So archaeopteryx would be a descendent of the (as yet) unknown feathered theropod, that also gave rise to maniraptors etc. if someone could add detail, confirmation, clean up and put into the artilc, would be good. Mackinaw 15:47, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

This has to do with the concept of "deep time"- i.e., the fact that the number of fossil species we've discovered probably represents less than 1% of what there actually were. Deinonychosaurs are usually considered the sister-group to birds, and while the earliest complete fossils of Deinonychosaurs go back to the early Cretaceous, we have teeth from the Middle Jurassic. --Rob117 18:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeopteryx a fake?

It is presented as a fact in this article, yet this is far from accepted. I'd recommend a re-wording and a link to a source at the very least.

It is accepted by mainstream science, and I think any such discussion therefore belongs on the Archaeopteryx page, not here. Here's a link to a discussion of Achae's legitimacy, if you think it's worth including there. [1] The Singing Badger 01:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never seen any claims that Archaeopteryx is a fake, and in fact there have been 7 separate finds of this species. See UC Berkley Paleontology site for issues that ARE of contention regarding Archaeopteryx. The feathered Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, however, was found to be a fake a 1999, as is mentioned in the wiki. See: Scientific Amercian article on Archaeoraptor controversy.Mackinaw 03:20, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Fred Hoyle claimed it was a fake, but then again he disbelieved the theory of evolution, so I don't think he's got a great deal of credibility on the subject. -- ChrisO 09:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how a scientist's or researcher's views can simply discredit his entire viewpoint on every facet of a subject. While many cases may verify the validity of Archaeopteryx, that doesn't mean that someone who doubts it is always wrong, or that proposing an alternate theory makes him wrong. Science is about finding the truth, whatever that may be. I simply don't believe that a scientist's world view can discredit his work or theory. Take Gregor Mendel. He was a Catholic monk. That isn't the general world view of the scientific community today, but that doesn't mean he was a crackpot who was totally off base on everything. He was one of the first to notice and discover the field of genetics which we know to be an essential part of life on earth. It's bigotry to write off someone just because you disagree on an issue. 71.221.167.168 (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to the above post, it wasn't his disbelief in evolution that makes him wrong. It's the fact that his arguments do not hold up. These specimens have been examined by countless scientists. One of them thinks it's fake, out of hundreds. So either everyone else is crazy, or he is. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx was not a fake. It was a genuine animal. But, it was not a "missing link", as evolutionists believe. It was a bird. Scorpionman 04:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And that's how animal classification works. Just because we decided to call it a "bird" doesn't mean there's nothing "dinosaurian" about it. Classification isn't a natural law, but a way for people to make sense of it all and just because we decided to call it a "bird" doesn't mean there's nothing dinosaurian about it. Primitive birds, including Archaeopteryx, had more in common with birdlike dinosaurs than they do with modern birds, anyway. As for it being a link; it may be a dead-end much like Homo neanderthalensis was. Point is, though, it DID establish the avian connection with dinosaurs. I love how creationists get all "well, it's called a birds! so there's nothing dinosaurian about it!" meanwhile, everyone evolutionary science also refers to "mammal-like reptiles" as.. well "reptiles", that doesn't mean that they aren't "mammal-like", though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.40.14 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "missing link", because it's been found. It's the earliest (known) bird, so it's a "link" (or at least close to one) and a bird. Keesey 03:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a rewrite for clarity

(From article) "the fossilized remains of a Tyrannosaurus rex was found. Within the fossilized thighbone was remaining soft tissue that helped create a new link between dinosaurs and modern birds."

This is very unclear. Just how did this "remaining soft tissue" help to "create a new link between dinosaurs and modern birds"?? - 23 November 2005

I was about to complain about this paragraph and then removed it when I noticed the above complaint had been made already. The paragraph was:

Recently, in Montana, USA, the fossilized remains of a Tyrannosaurus rex was found. Within the fossilized thighbone was remaining soft tissue that helped create a new link between dinosaurs and modern birds. The T. rex that was found is a suspected female because of a large similarity between the medullary bone, used in the production of eggs, found in modern birds.

The soft tissue sentence is not explained at all, the first sentence doesn't define "recently', the last sentence is an interesting fact but has no context, and overall I don't know what this paragraph has to do with feathered dinosaurs. Feel free to rewrite/clarify and reinsert if it can be made relevant to this topic. Tempshill 22:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Something else that needs some revision:

"The first known dinosaur with true flight-structured feathers (pennaceous feathers) is Caudipteryx (135-121 mya), although evidence for these is restricted to its tail, so it is unlikely that these feathers were used for flight; they were more likely used for display."

Caudipteryx is the first to be discovered with pennaceous feathers, not the earliest known, so this could be confusing. Evidence is not restricted to the tail--Caudipteryx famously has small fans of wing feathers. The size/shape of the feathers and structure of the arm is the reason it was flightless, not the location of the feathers. I'll fix it up.Dinoguy2 03:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Archaeoraptor"

The article says...

Adding to the controversy, in 1999 a supposed 'missing link' fossil of an apparently feathered dinosaur named "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis", found in Liaoning Province, northeastern China, turned out to be a fake (the bottom portion being from a dromaeosaurid now known as Microraptor and the upper portion being from a primitive bird now known as Archaeovolans).

First of all, wasn't "Archaeovolans" a junior synonym of Yanornis? Secondly, what's the official (published) status of the situation regarding Archaeoraptor vs. Microraptor? Is it premature to put Archaeoraptor in quotes?Dinoguy2 14:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There is no "conclusive evidence"

I don't know why this happens but I'm very sick of it. Every article on this encyclopedia relating to dinosaurs, evolution etc. is biased towards evolution and mega-annums. BIAS! And a couple of fossils with feathers DOES NOT prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs any more than a fossilized chicken with a few scales proves that lizards evolved from chickens! Singing Badger and WAS 4.250, "little" is not exactly biased because that's how much evidence there is! Saying that a fossilized dinosaur with a few feathers on it doesn't provide conclusive evidence that this evolution occured! Scorpionman 19:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

any more than a fossilized chicken with a few scales proves that lizards evolved from chickens! Actually, it does provide good evidenc that chickens evolved from "lizards". Their scales are molecularly identical to reptile scales, and contain genes that turn them into feahters a the veritable flip of a switch.Dinoguy2 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm WAS 4.250 20:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your opinion of the genetic evidence? WAS 4.250 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, one (or two) fossilized dinosaurs with a few primitive feathers on them doesn't prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs! The dinosaur would have to drastically decrease in size to evolve into a bird, which would take not only billions, but trillions of years! And that "reptile evolving from chicken" is nonsense which is why I used it in comparison. Chickens don't and never did have scales, so I find it very strange that you would think that they evolved into reptiles, Dinoguy. Scorpionman 21:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dozens of dinosaur fossils show *advanced* feathers. Some dromaeosaurs have asymetrical feahters, meaning they could fly. Many dinosaurs were already tiny, no size decrease needed. The average troodont, oviraptorosaur, etc were 3ft long or smaller. Chicken's do indeed have scales. I presume you've never seen a bird's foot. They don't have overlapping lizard-like scales, but those are unique to lizards and snakes. all other reptiles have broad flat scutes and small pebbly scales (turtles, crocodiles, tuataras, most dinosaurs, and bird feet). It is plain as day that you have a grade school knowledge of biology at best. We're done. Dinoguy2 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

have you read http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm ? WAS 4.250 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WAS, and the information is useful. Ahem, Dinoguy, we're not done! I know that chickens have scales, but only on their feet! They don't have them all over their skin! What you're saying is that these "feathered dinosaurs" have scaly skin and feathers! It seems to me that you're the one with only grade school knowledge of biology! Scorpionman 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite unnecessary. We don't need to dredge it back up if I deleted it. Scorpionman 15:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context. (See MeatBall:ContextSwizzling). Deleting your own text is ok. You also deleted someone elses, which is not acceptable.Dinoguy2 16:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to add back what he has now deleted twice. Give him his due. He's accussed of trolling, and has "made" you respond even after you said you were "done" by deleting the so-called trolling. If he is trolling, does he get extra points by successfully trolling you with deletes? I mean after all, trolling score is kept by seeing how much response you can get from the least effort/input. WAS 4.250 16:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because I'm not a fan of revisionism in talk page discussions (I find it extremely disingenuous to delete your own posts, let alone replies to them),I think the record here should show that the text Scorpionman removed from this discussion went as follows:

Hum, troll much? 152.163.101.13 05:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted my own comments and kept the other ones this time. Can you stop putting it back? Oh, and WAS, that was NOT trolling (whatever that is)! Scorpionman 02:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You win. You have the right to delete your own comments. You are not a troll. You were not trolling. My comment is that you said "P.S. Dinoguy, when people start rattling off nonsense about evolution, it's plain as day to me that they never evolved from apes! Case closed." at 03:31 on 16 March 2006 responded to by "Hum, troll much?" by anon responded to by you with "Don't you start calling me a troll!" at 16:39 on 17 March 2006. My god, you win the troll prize for making me respond to you like this! Ding! Ding! Ding! You win!!!! :) ;)  :0 WAS 4.250 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good! Glad to hear it! Scorpionman 16:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The text says "In the late 1990s, discoveries of feathered dinosaurs provided conclusive evidence of the connection, though the genealogical details are still being worked out." I don't believe that the presence of feathers on dinos "provides conclusive evidence" this statement deserves a citation. Perhaps "provides compelling evidence" would be more apt. Longisquama was a reptile with feather-like structures, but few people think that is conclusive evidence that longisquama was connected to birds. In fact, feathers could have evolved separately in different evolutionary branches. --66.136.217.233 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres a very easy way to settle claims of bias on a science page. Present evidence to support a contradicting theory. Take note of the word EVIDENCE not opinion or religious theology. There is a huge huge difference. Seeing as the focus of this wiki entry is the theory that some dinosaurs had feathers and evolved into birds. Discussing other theories such how the prehistoric era resembled an episode of The Flintstones should be done on a seperate page focused entirely on said theory.. Or perhaps Conservipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.30.213.222 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, "biased towards evolution," Scorpionman, because there is in fact a ton of evidence in support of evolution, whereas most young-earth creationism relies on strawman arguments, non-sequiters, and shakey anecdotal evidence. Oh, and quotes from Kent Hovind, who graduated from a prestigious split-level house. Magicflyinlemur 08:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeovolans --> Yanornis

" "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis" ... turned out to be a fake (the bottom portion being from a dromaeosaurid now known as Microraptor and the upper portion being from a primitive bird now known as Archaeovolans)." -- Archaeovolans now redirects to Yanornis, therefore I'm changing the text here in Feathered dinosaurs. PLEASE CORRECT IF ANY PROBLEM - IANAP -- Writtenonsand 17:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is correct. Archaeovolans *was* named for the top part of "Archaeoraptor", but later turned out to be a junior synonym of Yanornis. (Technically, Microraptor is a junior synonym of Archaeoraptor... but we don't talk about that :X )Dinoguy2 19:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

i Referenced a paper in the section that needs referencing, but cannot get it to work at the end of the article (in the references section) sorry to be a noob, but any help in sorting this out would be really helpful. Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 12:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for the ref--do you happen to have the volume and pagination info (or a link to the PDF online)? Dinoguy2 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs more extensive in-line referencing, particularly for data-rich items like the chart of which dinosaur species have fossil evidence for feathers (is it an adaptation/replication of a figure from the Plum & Brush article?). Rustavo 03:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction

this page says the most primitive feathered dinosaur was Sinosauropteryx, from 150-120 mya, but the page on Archaeopteryx says it was from 155-150 mya. am i missiong something? 69.163.197.224 05:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes--most primitive does not always mean oldest. Sinosauropteryx was a compsognathid, which lived at the same time and before Archaeopteryx. The problem is that we don't have feather impressions from those older species, and Sinosauropteryx was a bit of a 'living fossil' in its own time. Oddly, most feathered dinosaurs from that region appear to be very primitive members of families that had become more advanced elsewhere in the Early Cretaceous (for example, Microraptor was a primitive dromaeosaurid, but lived at the same time as the much more advanced Utahraptor). It's possible that China at this time was an island continent like Australia where mid-Jurassic forms lived on into the Cretaceous. It's also possible we simply have the date wrong--some feathered dinos come from rocks of uncertain age that many believe are mid-Jurassic, and older than Archaeopteryx.

Similar things are seen today--lumurs are the most primitive primates, but they live along side humans and chimps. If we didn't have a very good fossil racord, like with small dinosaurs, this might seem weird, until you realize that lemurs did live before the more advnced apes and we jus haven't found their remains. Dinoguy2 15:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no room for criticism

This article does not mention problems related to the identification of feathers in the Chinese specimens. The feather impressions could be collagen fibers. Lingham-Soliar reported the same structures in ichthysaurs and pterosaurs. John Ostrom mentioned that calling these structures feathers is more a matter of wishful thinking and speculation. There are theropod genera which were not feathered, including Pelecanimimus, Scipionyx and Compsognathus. This makes it seem like feathers appeared at random.

This is actually discussed in the article, and has a reference, check it out, Feduccia, A. Lingham-Soliar, T., and Hinchliffe, J.R. (2005). "Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence." Journal of Morphology, 266: 125-166.

However as far as i am aware this paper itself is academically contentious, as mentioned in the article no mammals or lizards finds in the area present the same preservation artifact, but they would have possesed integumental collagen fibres Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)