Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Tyrannosaurus Rex Relative Had Feathers 45

Posted by michael from the uuuuuuuuuuuuuugly dept.
smooth wombat writes "The earliest known relative of the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex had primitive feathers, probably to help it keep warm. The primitive feathers were found on the remains of a dinosaur called Dilong paradoxus, which was about 1.5 meters (yards) long. It is the first member of the T. rex family with the characteristic. The fossil was found in western China in an area rich in fossil remains."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tyrannosaurus Rex Relative Had Feathers More

Tyrannosaurus Rex Relative Had Feathers

Comments Filter:

  • I didn't know.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sevn ( 12012 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @03:31PM (#10462852) Homepage Journal
    That meters and yards were the exact same thing.
  • When I was in grade school dinosaurs were giant scaly lizards.
    Now I turn on the Discovery Channel and they all have hair or feathers!

  • More info... (Score:4, Informative)

    by jangobongo ( 812593 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @04:37PM (#10463732)
    Nature.com [nature.com] states that the feathers are actually protofeathers which are more like hair. Instead of having a central shaft and barbs, they are single flexible filaments that would have covered the dinosaur's body.

    Another interesting note from the article: The first Jurassic Park film featured scaly reptiles, but in the upcoming film Jurassic Park IV [imdb.com] all the dinosaurs now will have feathers.
    • I wonder is JP IV will be as big a turkey as JP III.

      PS: I actually enjoyed JP III, but the pun must come first.
    • You mean JP and both its knock offs.
      • Suckiness of plot aside...

        What about continuity? What if we find out that all Herbivores were democrats while carnivores were a solid lock for republican dionsaurs... will we go back to JP1 and have T Rex spit out the lawyer as a professional courtesy?

        stop the madness I want to get off.

  • The T-Rex turned into the Ostrich!

    More at 7...

  • Not so strange... (Score:4, Informative)

    by jpkunst ( 612360 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @04:58PM (#10463962)

    Since birds are descendants of dinosaurs. See here [wikipedia.org], for example.

    JP

    • Wasn't it Robert Bakker(sp?) who said something along the lines of, "shut up and eat your Thanksgiving raptor." :)

    • Re:Not so strange... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @11:34PM (#10466746) Homepage Journal
      Nope; not strange at all. Of course, it would be more accurate to say that birds (Aves) are a clade of the Dinosauria, but that would probably be a bit picky for /.'s style.

      While the evidence that firmly established this was only found in the past couple decades, it's perhaps worth noting that it's not at all a new idea. It was suggested by Charles Darwin, among others, that those fossilized bones of huge creatures that were being found in the early 1800's were remarkably similar to bird skeletons. Then, when the Archaeopterix fossils were found (in the Fraunhofer limestone formation in Germany), the connection was even more likely.

      But that wasn't really much evidence, and the idea was kicked around without much more information until the 1970's when a small gang of paleontologists led by John Ostrom started talking it up again. He pointed out that there were a number of other small dinosaurs, classified as Theropoda, that had been found, and they were remarkably similar to Archaeopterix, though they had arms rather than wings. Ostrom also pointed out that, although Archaeopterix was primitive in many respects (teeth, bony tail, denser bones than modern birds), it had fully modern feathers. He suggested that feathers were developed for insulation long before they were used for flight, and we should expect to find that many small dinosaurs had feathers.

      It didn't take long after that for small, feathered dinosaur fossils to turn up. The critical event was the opening up of China to academic and scientific work again after the decades of Mao's rule. There are formations in northwest China of fine-grained silt and limestone, 100-150 million years old, that preserve fine details of fossils. There are fossils of a number of early birds there, and also of other small non-flying dinosaurs. Many of the latter show feathers of various sorts.

      So, 150 years after Darwin suggested it, the conventional cladogram now has the birds as an offshoot of the theropod dinosaurs, and feathers are considered a primitive characteristic of an unknown portion of the dinosaurs. Mainly the smaller ones, of course, since the biggiest wouldn't have needed the insulation. Even the big ones may have had feathered crests, and their babies may have had feathers until they grew out of them.

      Due to my wife's allergies to cats and dogs, we share our house with four birds. We like to refer to them as our pet dinosaurs. Some people know what we're talking about. For the rest, we can say something like "Oh, didn't you hear? The dinosaurs weren't wiped out after all. Some of them survived; they're called 'birds'."

      And the cockatiels are moulting now, dropping feathers all over the place. The feathers mostly go into the compost. They sure don't fossilize very well.

      • Actually, cladistics would hold that Aves and Dinosaurs are descended from a common ancestor, but true dinosaurs are extinct. As a monophyletic taxon, Dinosaurs do not include Aves, but they are related.

        In other words, Crocodilians, Dinosaurs, and Birds are all Archosaurs...but Birds are not dinosaurs.

        I suppose however, that since cladistics is based largely on argument...the literature will support both positions.
      • Darwin didn't actually suggest a dinosaurian origin of birds, as far as I know, but his contemporary Thomas Henry Huxley did.

        The Chinese beds that produce this stuff are simply astonishing. They preserve plants, fish, insects, furry mammals, furry pterosaurs... and so on. Some of these critters actually preserve color patterns: the fish preserve countershading, and many of the insects have spots and stripes. The little carnivorous dinosaur Sinosauropteryx actually has stripes on the furry tail.

        The dromaeo

  • Place all Creationism vs Evolution Arguments HERE. (Score:3, Funny)

    by jasno ( 124830 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:13PM (#10464120) Journal
    Flame away.

  • Seems to me that what's new here is that t-rex was feathery. It's already pretty well accepted that some dinosaurs had feathers, and that birds are descended from some dino family branch.

    It is still funny to picture a bunch of these things. I mean, talk about crossing images... pack of bloodthirsty, dangerous t-rex... Now add on the feathers...

    and yes, t-rex probably were more solitary...

  • Makes you leary of a flock of chickens now, doesn't it?

  • hmm (Score:3, Funny)

    by fredopalus ( 601353 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @09:17PM (#10466268) Homepage
    What came first?

    The Chicken or the T-Rex?
    • The Egg, of course.

      But thinking about this what, yes what if the T-Rex's voice was like a giant chicken voice... Imagine a T-Rex sitting on a hill and roaring his low pitched earth shattering Cock-A-Doodledoo into the early morning.

      I'd love to see Jurassic Park adapt this.
  • It would be interesting to find out what these 'protofeathers' consisted of. If Dilong paradoxus lived between 139 and 128 million years ago, and Archaeopteryx 150 million years ago, that would mean feathers were evolving independently, from different lineages. I think thats stretching the imagination. ...just a little.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close