Researchers Unearth Largest Feathered Dinosaur 58
sciencehabit writes "Paleontologists have unearthed fossils of the largest feathered creature yet known, a 1.4-metric ton dinosaur that was an early cousin of Tyrannosaurus rex. The long, filament-like feathers preserved with three relatively complete skeletons of the newly described species provide direct evidence of extensively feathered gigantic dinosaurs. The discovery is controversial—and in some scientific circles, largely unexpected."
Re:Darn the facts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about this for a moment:
Nobody has ever seen a real dinosaur. We're separated in time from them by millions of years. Sure, we can make some great guesses but the fact is that we aren't going to get it perfectly right.
Look at what happens if you haven't seen the critter... [google.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Look at what happens if you haven't seen the critter...
Yes, because techniques haven't improved at all since 1731.
Re: (Score:1)
Look at what happens if you haven't seen the critter...
Yes, because techniques haven't improved at all since 1731.
Well, the look of dinosaurs have been altered more than one time since then too. I expect them to change a few times more.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you have: birds. Biologists routinely treat birds as dinosaurs these days. Because saying "birds are dinosaurs" isn't just being clever with words, it's a statement with useful predictive power. Even the Wikipedia article on dinosaurs has given up and now talks about dinosaurs in the present tense. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has ever seen a real dinosaur.
Sure, we have. One of the best explanations I've seen was in this xkcd discussion [xkcd.com]. Scan down to the two images separated by the text "but this, is a dinosaur:. It's a great illustration of the current understanding of the relation between birds, dinosaurs, and their relatives. The text above the images explains it.
Of course, 10 years from now we may have a slightly modified understanding. But this illustrates why we are all quite familiar with modern dinosaurs.
Actually, I have one sitting on my sh
Unexpected? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
My (certainly amateur) reading of the literature indicates that it's likely that all therapods were feathered, albeit mostly with thin insulating feathers that don't fossilize well. How is this unexpected?
its a large debate amongst paleontologist's whether or not dinosaurs were feathered, with some choosing to believe they were and others refuting the evidence as inconclusive, such as the apparent feathers simply being a tree branch or other anomaly, not feathers.
personally i prefer the past when dinosaurs weren't feathered its hard to think of raptor as kool and scary anymore when they look like retarded balding chickens
Re: (Score:2)
personally i prefer the past when dinosaurs weren't feathered its hard to think of raptor as kool and scary anymore when they look like retarded balding chickens
So you don't think something with feathers could scary? Like, say, an eagle? Well fucking grizzly bears [youtube.com] disagree with you -- maybe you should reconsider!
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
its a large debate amongst paleontologist's whether or not dinosaurs were feathered, with some choosing to believe they were and others refuting the evidence as inconclusive, such as the apparent feathers simply being a tree branch or other anomaly, not feathers.
personally i prefer the past when dinosaurs weren't feathered its hard to think of raptor as kool and scary anymore when they look like retarded balding chickens
I think you are confusing science with something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Know what's worse? Most ancient dinosaurs probably didn't go "RAWWWWRRRR." In fact, they probably didn't have voices at all [wikipedia.org] - vocal chords in the larynx are a mammalian invention, and birds make sounds with the syrinx, which came along later.
My daughter is 4yo and dinosaur-mad. Her very favourite day out is the Natural History Museum (with the fucking huge diplodocus in the entry hall). How do you break it to a small child that dinosaurs didn't go "RAWWWWRRRR"? Santa is nothing to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until they're a slightly larger child and won't be so crushed?
Seriously, if your 4 year old wants to believe they go "RAWWWWRRRR", why disappoint her just yet? She's got plenty of years to be stuck with cold hard facts. Just go "RAWWWWRRRR" back. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I do, I do!
Re: (Score:2)
They are surmising the chambers were resonators.
This is way cool: Reconstructed parasaurolophus call [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:1)
It's unexpected because the Young Earther Bible thumpers are going to have a hard time with it. How do you negate evolution as a theory if you start to discover crossover species?
They'll say all fossils were planted by the devil to fool the nonchristians into believing something blasphemous....Or osmething like that...GOD!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I think the going assumption up until now has been that large theropods of all types, tyrannosaurs and the like, may have had feathers as juveniles but lost them all or most of them in adulthood.
Re: (Score:2)
My (certainly amateur) reading of the literature indicates that it's likely that all therapods were feathered, albeit mostly with thin insulating feathers that don't fossilize well. How is this unexpected?
But fossil skin imprints of later therapods (t-rex) indicate that they had scales...
For some reason, apart from the archaeopteryx (which is a far older fossil), the feathered dinosaurs all seem to have lived in that one area in present day China. I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm not convinced any of them are entirely real. Many of these, apparently including this fossil, were not dug up and prepared by paleontologists, but by local artisans. The ones with feather imprints or looking like transitional sp
Re: (Score:2)
Feather impressions would be scrutinized under microscopic detail. And a known forgery Archeoraptor, wasn't from a fake feather impressions, but two slabs from two different species(top and bottom half), presented as one, and it was suspect because it had no counter-slab of the reverse side.
I read that this particular specimen was bought in the market. They're not even sure exactly where it was found.
I'm sure the imprints are of real feathers, but were they 125 million year old dinosaur down, or contemporary chicken down?
turns out it was just Big Bird (Score:1)
Wheres the pics? (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be nice if the article actually included a few photos of the fossils that were found.
Some artists rendering is a poor substitute.
Re:Wheres the pics? (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory Cul-De-Sac reference. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like it's the first one.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it Y.huali or Y.hulai ? The article has both spellings.
I had to look at the article's date, to make sure they weren't joking about U.hauli, I.foani, E.maili, A.bicidi, etc.
Please, please, please (Score:3)
No reanimation until this feather thing is resolved
Clothing? (Score:5, Funny)
Feathers and scales are the same genes (Score:5, Informative)
It is likely that in some dinosaurs that both were present. In other cases, it may be that feathers were present first, then scales replaced them when shed - like adult teeth replace milk teeth. Also, because it's the same gene, a change in environmental conditions may cause feathers to appear in dinosaurs in which they would not otherwise do so -- once the mutations necessary have arisen, of course. One case study is proof that the mutations existed at that time and is a strong indication that feathered dinos existed prior to that time, but we've insufficient evidence to say definitely if this was a feathered dino in the general case, only the specific case.
Re:More Evidence... (Score:5, Informative)
Feathers evolved as insulation. After millions of years, they and the critters they adorned evolved them into use for flight (along with diminished size, air-pockets in bones, etc).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:More Evidence... (Score:5, Funny)
If he'd posted under his own username, he'd be +5 Funny/Troll/Insightful by now :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No one is going to take time to give you a basic high school education on the internet. Posting as AC because you don't want people to know you are a whackjob is more like it.
Probably trolling. Creationists don't usually feel a need to hide their identity, because they think *they're* the ones with sane views.
Re:More Evidence... (Score:4, Insightful)
Feathers exist for the purpose of flying. (snip) If evolution is real, then feathers evolved for flying.
Ostrich, emu, penguin...
How do you reconcile that feathers would have come about BEFORE the creature was even close to capable of flying?
Same reason some modern birds have feathers but cannot fly. Same reason whales and snakes have hip bones.
Re: (Score:2)
Feathers exist for the purpose of flying. (snip) If evolution is real, then feathers evolved for flying.
Ostrich, emu, penguin...
Penguins most certainly do fly. They just do it underwater. That said, don't confuse present-day usage with the twisted paths evolution has followed to get here.
Re: (Score:1)
If evolution is real, then feathers evolved for flying.
Tell that to the emu and the kiwi, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a polite refutation [rationalwiki.org] to a whole string of stupid creationist arguments on RationalWiki.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we all know things that heavy can't fly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Posting as AC because I'm sure some of the whackjobs on here will be unhinged by this...
You mean "posting AC because my Reverend Jake trolls have me at horrible karma?" Ok, I'll bite, troll, only because assholes like you you give Christians a bad name and piss me off.
Earth was created somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.
And there's the first insult. I don't know of a single Christian who believes that bullshit, which is NOT in your bible anywhere.
It's ridiculous to think that a 1.4 ton animal woul
Yum! (Score:1)
Come out tonight?...