Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
<div style="background-color: none transparent;"><a href="http://www.rsspump.com/?web_widget/rss_ticker/news_widget" title="News Widget">News Widget</a></div>
Hello, we here at Speculative Evolution have noticed a recent increase in the number of guests visiting our community. While being a guest does allow you to browse the forum at a basic level, it does not give you access to everything. There are many things that guests cannot see, and therefore we urge you to join our us so that you may contribute to our community and the projects we are undertaking. If you would like to register, please click the link below. If you are already a member, please ignore this message and log in. Thank you for your cooperation.


Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
BIRD feathers on your birds!
Topic Started: Apr 22 2012, 07:24 AM (4,370 Views)
Fleeshster
Member Avatar
Not Flisch
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Ok, I'm sure you've noticed that Dinosaurs in movies and drawings look more like they have fur then feathers. Now, that's all fine and dandy for Tyrannosaurs, Alverzsaurs, and Ornithomimids, which only had protofeathers, but when your talking about Maniraptors, it makes no sense to only put large masses of feathers on "birds". If we want to get technical, all Maniraptorans are birds. As such, they should have an equal amount of feather coverage.
(Note: this is basically my rant about unrealistic Dino interpretation)

Bad examples of feddurz:
Spoiler: click to toggle

Posted Image
Good examples of feddurz:
Posted Image
Spoiler: click to toggle


Notice; If you took out the teeth and shrunk the tail of the top two birds, they don't look like birds. At all. However, if you do it with out two volunteers to science, you would almost certainly mistake them as birds.
Edited by Fleeshster, Apr 22 2012, 07:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
The thing that gets me about the fur-feathers conundrum; ratites. Ratites have feathers (obviously), but they're pretty 'devolved'- they're quite hair-like;

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the birdification of maniraptors. But when we're discussing species that have been pretty non-volant for tens of millions of years, shouldn't we look to other maniraptors that have been flightless for a long period of time as well? Wouldn't the feathers covering, say, velociraptor or troodon be sort of 'fluffy' like those of a cassowary? Do we have fossil evidence to the contrary?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Russwallac
Member Avatar
"Ta-da!"
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Aside from the above argument, you have to remember that there isn't a real, single "bird-type" feather covering. Bird feathers come in all shapes, sizes, and textures; some are smooth, like those of a crow, whereas others are much fluffier, like an owl.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fleeshster
Member Avatar
Not Flisch
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Yes, but those are still pretty thick. Its thick enough to cover tiny little wings, no?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fakey
Member Avatar
FALCON CONFIRMED
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I think he's saying he wants fluffball birds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar
Rowsdower saves us, and saves all the world!

I can't understand what the problem is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Russwallac
Member Avatar
"Ta-da!"
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Also, please stop calling non-avian dinosaurs birds; it's like calling archosaurs dinosaurs. Birds are a very specific and derived group of theropod dinosaurs, not vice-versa. In simpler terms, birds are dinosaurs, but dinosaurs aren't birds.

(Also, please, PLEASE don't use LOL-Speak while discussing scientific topics.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
There's a bit of debate as to whether groups such as oviraptosaurs and dromaeosaurs fall within Aves.

Nontheless the idea that there's some sort of brilliant magical boundary between stuff that falls inside Aves and stuff that doesn't makes no sense. If these creatures were around today they'd totally be considered birds, it's only our post-non-avian-dinosaur viewpoint that distorts our view.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar
Rowsdower saves us, and saves all the world!

Seriously, what's supposed to be wrong with the feathers?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Sometimes when people reconstruct feathered dinosaurs, they give them a kind of fur-like integument rather than proper feathers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colddigger
Member Avatar
Joke's over! Love, Parasky
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I think it is that the body cover is not like that of a flying bird.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FallingWhale
Member Avatar
Adult
 *  *  *  *  *  *
The velociraptor is correct.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JohnFaa
Member Avatar
Adveho in mihi Lucifer
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
No it isn't. The snout is unfeathered, the fingers scaly, the wing feathers are growing in the wrong finger, and it has yellow in it's crest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colddigger
Member Avatar
Joke's over! Love, Parasky
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Maybe it felt like being stylish. Velociraptors are known for their FABULOUS nature.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zorcuspine
Member Avatar
You never cease to suprise me blue hedgehog

JohnFaa
Apr 23 2012, 01:18 PM
No it isn't. The snout is unfeathered, the fingers scaly, the wing feathers are growing in the wrong finger, and it has yellow in it's crest.
But isn't the snout supposed to be unfeathered?

Anyway you are absolutely correct with your other two points regardless
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Science Central · Next Topic »
Add Reply