Talk:Feathered dinosaur

Missing Information

Why doesn't this article explain the evolutionary imperative for feathers or how they evolved? --Hadomaru (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

the imperative for feathers is that the animal can have a regular body temperature even in cold environments, like the Gobi desert, and after the discovery of Tianyulong it is possible that feathers (at least unbristled shafts) were always a trait of dinosaurs.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see more detail about how pigment in fossil feathers is analyzed and colors can be determined through chemical analysis of trace metals and the presence of melanosomes. Color in feathers is important evidence that supports the theory that feathers played a role in sexual selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessler.254 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there could be more information on the more advanced species of dinosaurs (in terms of feather development) and how flight actually evolved. Did these species use their proto-wings initially to fly or just glide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessler.254 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

~ Magmagoblin (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Magmagoblin (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2008 (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)

There's a problem: Archaeopteryx is not a theropod; the wikipedia page on this also notes it's a bird; Archaeopteryx is a bird with theropod-like characteristics, but fully bird; it exhibits fully-formed flight feathers, and also has the ligament-attachment points on the bones to control them. It should be removed from this article and de-pictured: its presence here shows dated science.

tooMuchData

12:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is meaningless as "birds", however defined, are theropod dinosaurs. Furthermore, deinonychosaurs (which are not traditional "birds") had flight feathers as well. Albertonykus (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused on where the line between "bird" and "dinosaur" really is, and if its even a defined line at all. What makes a bird a bird and not a theropod? I think more information on this would be helpful Kessler.254 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no such "line", a bird is a subdivision of theropod, which is a subdivision of dinosaur, in other words, birds are theropods which are dinosaurs. It's like asking "where is the line between primate and mammal?", and "what makes a primate a primate and not a mammal?". Editor abcdef (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

I agree, Archaeopteryx is not fake: however it doesn't technically qualify as a "link"; it is a bird with a few, apparently, theropod-ish features..

tooMuchData

12:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

Since birds have many "theropod-ish features", your assertion doesn't make sense. 190.17.55.192 (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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).65.255.88.233 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

Personally, "genetic evidence" is quite vague; the genetic findings used first, are subject to scrutiny (degredation); secondly, it's based on a few points in the same way many organisms today could be claimed as related or have some kind of mutual decent, or sequence of divergence from one another, but which is not the case: a few proteins or codons alike does not a case make: careful about listening to the "science" of hyped fads within academia, give it a few decades then re-examine: the bird-to-dino link was questioned by the more sober minds from the beginning, and before we knew it studies "proved" it (usually, however, being biased beforehand). We typically like to see what we're looking for in the data.

tooMuchData

12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

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)

Trillions of years for a large aimal to become small? More like a couple thousand. Look at the mammoths that lived on islands, they were living there for a pretty short time, and they shrunk drastically during the time they lived there. There are even rats that live in N.Y. state that are half the size of their normal counterparts, and this change happened in only a couple of decades! Or even Homo Florences (or something like that...) is about a third of the size of a Homo Sapien. I'm not sure if Homo Sapien is Homo Florences' closest relative, but it still shows that it takes a very small amount of time for an animal to shrink in size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.113.65 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to disregard comments from a user who believes it takes longer for a dinosaur to evolve into a much smaller animal than the time the Universe has existed ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.148.119 (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why would the ancestors of birds even have to shrink? There were plenty of small dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Just another reason this guy can't be taken seriously.

To 'Scorpionman',

Please keep the American evolution vs. non-evolution nonsense off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an international, user-driven media for conveying scientific information in plain language. It conveys scientific consensus and is not a theological media. I have removed the title 'evolution-defender' from 'British biologist and evolution-defender Thomas Henry Huxley' under 'Early hypothesis', since it is a value-charged expression that plays into the American creationism vs. evolution debate, which is not relevant to an article about feathered dinosaurs. If you don't like science, fine, but please stay off Wikipedia instead of trying to 'correct' it to bring it in line with your religious beliefs. Please keep religious debate out of scientific articles on Wikipedia. Thank you. Anne (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Anne1024.

I'm a Christian and I agree with Scorpion, but Anne is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.88.233 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Still Contraversial

That is contraversial even for evolutionary scientists.65.255.88.233 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

How many specimens with feathers?

Wouldn't it be nice to have the exact number of specimens that show impressions of feathers, and not just which genera these specimens belong to? And better yet, the number of feathered specimens of each genera found? Is this information available anywhere? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this information is available, at least in a strictly published form. Some genera are known from dozens of specimens, and I doubt there's a review out there describing what proportion of those preserve feathers for each, or give an exact number. Many specimens of common species remain unsubscribed and may not be described for years at the moment. So, I suppose we could try a section enumerating described specimens, but then we have to decide what counts as described. For example Microraptor gui is "extremely common" and known from several dozen specimens, some have been figured but not described, or only mentioned briefly in descriptions of other specimens. One option may be to just use an independent site like this: [2], but that's not a published source. Any suggestions? Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like it'll be tough then... And just wishful thinking from my side, heh. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

'Plumaceous feathers inferred'

Such annotations on the tree should have refs attached. The suggestion that large therapods like T. rex had plumaceous feathers is quite counter-intuitive, on grounds of the reduced needs of large animals for heat insulation. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Plumaceous mean that the feathers are useless for flight, maybe T. rex had a feather crest or tailfan for display in the mating season, but it would not be fully feathered like "Yutyrannus huali as Yutyrannus lived in a much colder environment. nor would T. rex have wings like Velociraptor or Ornithomimus.

Comparative anatomy

Comparative anatomy does provide real evidence. Huxley's comparison of Archaeopteryx with Compsognathus showed that, apart from the arms and the feathers, their skeletal features were closely similar. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead image accurate?

The lead image of this article displays a fully feathered Deinonychus. While Deinonychus may well have been feathered, is there any basis for the fully pennaceous feathers on the arms and tail. I understand that Turner et al. ('07) stated that Velociraptor had feather quills, but has the same been reported for Deinonychus? Is that supposed to be a pygostyle on the tail too?, and is that accurate? It looks too bird like IMO. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 21:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Velociraptor and Deinonyhcus are very close relatives. It only makes sense to base the known feathers of one on the other. All known dromaeosaurs have pennaceous feathers on the arms and tail, and substantially thick coat of feathers on the body, especially the neck and breast. There's no evidence to suggest Deinonychus was an exception. And, "too bird like" compared to what? Deinonychus is a bird under some definitions of that word. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An alternate lead image could be this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2010/02/100204144422-large.jpg This picture is the result of an analysis to determine the actual colors of the dinosaur's feathers. Here is the reference. Quanguo Li, Ke-Qin Gao, Jakob Vinther, Matthew D. Shawkey, Julia A. Clarke, Liliana D'alba, Qingjin Meng, Derek E. G. Briggs, Long Miao, Richard O. Prum. Plumage Color Patterns of an Extinct Dinosaur. Science, Online February 4, 2010 DOI: 10.1126/science.1186290 74.190.1.96 (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That image isn't free to use, unfortunately, but we have other similar images of Anchiornis already on Wiki (one by me :) ). MMartyniuk (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with Anciornis instead, as the plumage is so well documented. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Gallery (notification)

All of the images are taken from the sub-article link within the Taxonomy Classification (of section: Phylogeny and the inference of feathers in other dinosaurs) in this article. If you disagree with the classification, give valid scientific evidence with reliable resource. Don't synthesize your conclusion or proceed with cleanups if necessary. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Galleries are not recommended for Wikipedia articles. And a gallery is not particularly useful here, as most feathered specimens are already shown in the article, life restorations don't really "prove" or support anything. In any case, it is superfluous at best. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is recommended or not that is your personal opinion. For majority of users they don't even what feathered dinosaurs are. I think the gallery do present a clearer picture of avian lineage evolution. Note encyclopedia are for the general users to read, and not everybody who read wikipedia are good at biological features association. Also do note that this article is mainly focused on a hypothesis/theory and it probably serve as a reference to the evidence. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is totally ridiculous. The section you cite also includes Aves. Why haven't you added every bird species to the gallery? It also doesn't follow the section as you claim. Your galley includes Compsignathus, which is not marked 'feathers inferred' on the cladogram (and is not feathered in the actual image!). Same for Huaxiagnathus. If you had read the cited source for that tree, you'd see it was from the Juravenator paper, which explicitly deals with the (apparent) fact that Juravenator was NOT feathered, and is not marked as such on the cladogram, yet is included in your gallery.

Look, you've followed the spirit if not the letter of the cladogram, but that's original research. If you'd like to create a web site listing every one of the hundreds of dinosaur species and thousands of birds inferred by bracketing to have feathers, go ahead, but it's not relevant to this article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why Juravenator is in the list of "feathered dinosaurs"? Does the question mark at the end mean "This species shouldn't really be here" :o)?--MWAK (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there was a subsequent paper that identified structures that may be feathers on the original fossil. But in the original paper he was using as a source, it indeed specifically said it did not have feathers. Just because this was later cast in doubt doesn't mean it's not still a misrepresentation of the paper. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant topology

The topology of the cladogram, with Tyrannosauroidea as the most basal group within Coelurosauria, is defensible, but irrelevant to a phylogenetic bracketing based on Sinosauropteryx which intends to conclude anything about their possession of feathers: if Tyrannosauroidea were the most basal group nothing could be inferred for them from the latter's integument — but Dilong would become the most basal known feathered theropod! So a choice must be made: either "go Tyrannoraptora" or bracket from Dilong.

And it would be nice to add Beipiaosaurus, exactly because it contradicts what pure phylogenetic bracketing would suggest.--MWAK (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow? The cladogram is taken directly from the Juravenator paper, so I'd hesitate to change it much. Dilong is indeed the most basal feathered theropod in most (all?) topologies currently out there. And Beipiaosaurus has both multifilament, Sinosauropteryx-like feathers and simpler, Tianyulong-like monofilament feathers, so I'm not sure what impact it would have other than showing it's not an all-or-nothing transformation from monofilament-plumaceous-pennaceous. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course you do have a point that it is best to remain close to the source. However, the authors refer to Dilong as being the relevant taxon and seem to have chosen Albertosaurus and Tyrannosaurus purely because they are well known species. If the intention of the cladogram is to show how the method of phylogenetic bracketing works out for this subject, the species on which all these inferences are based on, should be in it. For the authors this didn't matter so much because they were writing for experts anyway, who were unlikely to be confused. The article, at least until today :o), mentioned that Sinosauropteryx was the "most primitive" dinosaur known to possess feathers — thus my first suggestion to make the cladogram reflect this.

As regards Beipiaosaurus: phylogenetic bracketing indicates that therizinosaurs would have pennaceous feathers. But Beipiaosaurus apparently hasn't. I refer to our fellow wikipedian Naish: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/02/month_in_dinosaurs_part_i.php --MWAK (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but that post was written before Zanno et al. demonstrated that therizinosaurs may be the most basal maniraptorans, not close relatives of oviraptorosaurs as previously thought. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Naish is a Wikipedian? FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Very commendable quality for a scientist, I would say ;o)--MWAK (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I had forgotten :>(. Worse, I hadn't even read the paper. Then again, the same study has Tyrannosauroidea and Compsognathidae as sister clades, making it irrelevant to choose between Sinosauropteryx and Dilong. Of course this means we now have to make a choice between three alternatives :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not just present one or two and mention that it's far from resolved? I presonally doubt we'll see basal coelurosaur phylogenies stabilize in our lifetimes, barring some spectacular early-mid Jurassic finds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree — still emphasizing that including some basal feathered species would be the optimal solution.--MWAK (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Similicaudipteryx

We have Nomingia in the list because it has a pygostyle. Should we add Similicaudipteryx, too? Albertonykus (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! The authors do explicitely speculate that it carried a feather fan so I reckon it counts, though we do now know that rod-shaped pygostyles don't necessarily indicate a fan (Bepiaosaurus has one, for example, with no long tail feathers). Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deinonychus

I was reading the Theropoda blog today and it mentioned Deinonychus being found with a side shelf on its second finger that's supposed to be homologous with those of birds with the implication that Deinonychus definitely had primary feathers. (Taking a look at the original article itself, however, feathers aren't specifically mentioned, only whether or not the shelf equates to aerodynamic ability, which is no.) Albertonykus (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Similicaudipteryx, again

There are some new Similicaudipteryx specimens that preserve feathers, and show their growth stages, no less. The main Similicaudipteryx article needs updating, too, but I don't have time to do so at the moment. Albertonykus (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy smoke! And they also seem to have given it the head of Incisivosaurus on the restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Pelecanimimus

I've sometimes seen the idea that Pelecanimimus preserves (or was thought to have preserved) feathers, but does anyone know if this was ever suggested in print? Albertonykus (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of, the initial paper only describes them as "integumentary fibers", which could mean anything. I think most people not believe them to be muscle fibers, since naked skin is also preserved in the same area. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Having read Briggs et al., they do not address the purported integumentary fibers. They confirm that these represent traces of soft tissue, and that's it. Only the throat pouch is written about in detail, reporting that muscle fibers and naked skin are preserved, but they talk only vaguely (if at all) about the soft tissues preserved elsewhere. Albertonykus (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Sinornithosaurus haoiana preserve feathers?

Been looking over the original description, and based on my limited grasp of Simplified Chinese characters I can't find any reference to feathers on the actual specimen; they're only referred to in the intro with respect to Liaoning dromaeosaurids in general. Sadly the only photos of it are just huge blurs so I can't verify one way or another. Albertonykus (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Theropod Database entry lists feathers as present, fwiw... Don't have access to the paper itself to check unfortunately. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Going to blame on the quality of my PDF file for now then. Noticed that feathers don't appear to be mentioned in the text of the paper describing Caudipteryx sp. even though the specimen preserves them. Albertonykus (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

cladogram

If feathers are inferred for Tyrannosaurids, wouldn't that imply that they lie inside the Compsognathidae, where most sources would place them? Is this a typo in the encoding of the cladogram? — kwami (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

you appear to be misreading, Tyrannosaurs are advanced Coelurosaurs that are convergently similar to Carnosaurs, feathers for them are a possibility ever since the discovery of Yutyrannus.--50.138.213.207 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm asking how feathers could be inferred for Tyrannosaurids when there was no evidence for feathers in Tyrannosaurids (feathers in Yutyrannus were not known at the time), nor for any lineage outside of the Tyrannosaurids. I mean, why not say they're inferred for all dinosaurs? If, however, there's a typo in the cladogram, and the Compsognathidae with feathered Sinosauropteryx was intended to lie outside Tyrannosauridae, then the inference would be compatible with the methods attributed to the study. — kwami (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that oddity has never been addressed, and the cladogram is out of date by now anyway, so I'm deleting. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Feathers in tyrannosaurs have been inferred since the discovery of Dilong paradoxus in 2004. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

yes they are feathers.

no, those feather imprints on Sinosauropteryx are not preservation artifacts. remove that mention that it might be especially because its not cited. Creationists need to stop gunking up Wikipedia with their crazy pseudoscience that has zero evidence to support it.--50.138.213.207 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't suggested by creationists, but ornithologists, so has to be mentioned, and debunked. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok and i am sorry because it appears that i have misread the entry. it states that "No non Theropod fossils from the same site shows such an artifact", i meant you should remove that specifically unless it can be cited.--50.138.213.207 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Feathers the Standard?

Is it possible that it was not scales but feathers that were the standard Integument for Dinosaurs? after the discovery of Tianyulong confuciusi its seeming more and more likely. Because if that is the case then it is undeniable that Birds are Dinosaurs.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, skin known from all other lines than theropods and heterodontosaurs only show scales. Psittacosaurus was covered in scales everywhere but the back of the tail, it seems, and what the structure they had there was isn't really certain. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dredging this up to note that since crocodiles have the genes (albeit modified) to make feathers, that it's entirely plausible that feathers were the default dinosaurian integument; indeed, maybe all dinosaurs had feathers to some extent, the fossilization proecess is quite unkind (usually) to soft tissue in animals; the beds we do have preserving feathers are usually limestone deposits or areas where animals could be burried in ash; not places like Hell Creek or the Morrison. Sauropods could have retained quills on their backs, possibly even hardened them like a porcipine to defend their backs from assault, as could other groups, we simply don't have the fossils to back it up. But the bracket of feathers (essentially "Crocodylus, Passer, their LCA and all descendants", the same definition as that of Archosauria) suggests that all dinosaurs likely possessed some form of feather. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that birds modified the same base structure of crocodilian scutes to form feathers--this is NOT the same thing as "crocodiles have modified feather genes". It more likely means feathers come from modified scute genes, the same base structure can be modified to form both. That being said, the presence of pennaceous feathers in ornithischians pretty much proves feathers of some kind are common to all dinosaurs, and probably ornithodirans ("pycnofibres" might be most parsimoniously assumed to be stage 1 feathers). MMartyniuk (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ornithischians did not have pennaceous feathers. But yeah, all ornithodirans likely had at least stage-1 feathers. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how you define pennaceous I guess. They certainly didn't have vaned feathers (how some define "pennaceous"), but they had feathers with a central thickened shaft (rachis) and side branches (barbs), which is another definition of pennaceous but really would be called down since afaik they had open vanes with no barbules or hooklets. This is equivalent to Prum's stage III. For more, wait for the paper, should be out in a few months :D It should also be noted that Czerkas reported down-like branching feathers with a rachis on the brachiopatagium of Pterorhynchus. This was largely ignored/discounted due to Czerkas' idiosyncratic belief that pteorsaurs are some kind of apomorphic basal saurischians along with maniraptorans (weird para-version of BAND) and the fact that the specimen is technically still in (his own) private hands and isn't readily available for examination by other researchers. But given the recent discovery of the Siberian feathered ornithischians, it is no longer an incredible stretch to suppose pterosaurs had stage II or III feathers, so this should really be looked into again. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, I'd call those pennaceous. I had no idea about those discoveries. Last I heard, ornithischians were only known to have stage-1-type feathers. Our articles, however, contradict you. Do they need to be corrected? — kwami (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not yet, right now we only have an abstract on an SVP talk, which was cancelled due to presenter illness. We can correct them once the paper is out and the inevitable media blitz has begun. (If you're curious, this image is based on the integument of the new species, though using Orodromeus skeletal anatomy. note the presence of both ratite-like feathers and croc-like scutes on the dorsal tail! ).MMartyniuk (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If that illustration is even close to accurate, it really would suggest feathers are basal to Dinosauria, and yeah, Pterorhynchus would seem to be of major importance. I wonder why people aren't knocking at his door to examine it. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

List of 4-Winged Dinosaurs or Dinosaurs with hind wings?

So now that were all clear on the feather issue, how about categorizing limb arrangment/structure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.18.10 (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem here would be the definition of "hind wing." In current use, any fossils with feathers on the legs seems to be called "hind winged." Would we include Archaeopteryx? Rock Ptarmigan? If we restrict it to species with aerodynamic or lift-capable feathers on the metatarsus, it would be Microraptor and.... Microraptor. If we restrict it to animals with metatarsal feathers that may have been used for aerial maneuvering but not necessarily lift, we get into the controversy of how aerial any of these specific things really were. I'd probably not open that can of worms and simply add a sub-section to Bird flight for now. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Primitive feather types

While I'm not sure if Avifilopluma#Content provides any significant new insight and refs, since the possibility that feathers arose already with the ornithodirans is already noted in this article, Feather#Evolution certainly provides something new and surprising: even crocodilians have suppressed genes for feathers! Again, crocodilians turn out more similar to birds than traditionally assumed, once you stop thinking of them as only yet another group of reptiles and start to think of them as the closest remaining relatives of birds. (Besides, crocs rather than dinos make a much more plausible inspiration for mythical dragonlike monsters anyway. They strike me as the prime candidate for the closest modern-day analogue to the prehistoric saurian monsters of popular imagination.)

Makes you wonder about turtles; since they're now increasingly thought of as a sister group to crocodilians and birds, what surprises might their genome harbour? Associating crocodilians with feathers sounds no less nutty, after all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"even crocodilians have suppressed genes for feathers" Er, not quite. Crocodilians have feather-type keratins which are suppressed in favor as scutes in crocs, the same or similar keratins are expressed as feathers. This means that the ancestral archosaur integument probably had both kinds of keratin, not necessarily that that keratin was in the form of feathery structures (though it's possible). I clarified the text, it looks like whoever wrote that bit really misunderstood the study. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Genuine feathers?" section in need of improvement

I've noticed this section only details the argument that Sinosauropteryx's filaments are a preservation artifact, when we must discuss both sides of the argument in order to avoid bias. Unfortunately, I don't have any sources at hand, so someone else will have to change it. --24.141.115.104 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a BANDit/MANIAC snuck in without someone noticing and made that edit, I'll get right onto changing it. Thanks for that heads-up. --Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by bias

"By the 1990s, most paleontologists considered birds to be surviving dinosaurs"

MOST paleontologists? Big citation required there. This article is a mess of biased rubbish. The similarities between dinosaurs and birds from a skeletal perspective have been well known for a while, however, the evidence of feathered "dinosaurs" (as in the variety familiar and beloved by children everywhere) is non-existent. Objectively, the "feathered" so-called evidence is not definitive and is open to controversy which this article mentions in passing as if it is the minority view. Here is the issue: Evolution theory. This is why this article exists and you all know it. There is a mob who DESIRES birds to be evolved dinosaurs and therefore they are making it so in ironically unscientific ways. Ironic because this cult of evolution theory often boast of and champion science otherwise. Misrepresenting actual science in the process in order to make their biased point. Unfortunately, critics of these people are often branded as religious creationists and dismissed. But bias is very real and very unscientific and this Internet cult of militant atheism is a disgrace to the scientific method.

Whether birds are related to and evolved from dinosaurs is besides the point. Misrepresenting the evidence in order to MAKE birds evolved from dinosaurs is what the issue is here. And if you take a step back and read this article objectively (or research the subject in question objectively) you will see that there is little in the way of actual science involved and a lot of bias in its place in agenda fashion which is no better (and the flip side of) dogmatic creationists. It's even gotten to the point where this cult of "atheos" (in Dawkins they trust...) is criticizing the production of Jurassic Park 4 for depicting dinosaurs without feathers.

Will a serious editor(s) please take a look or two at this article with an objective eye and possibly see where in coming from? I know this isn't a forum and it's for improving the article. That's why I wrote this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.101.166 (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Almost all Paleontologists in the field of dinosaurs believe that birds are dinosaurs. It does not matter what individuals think, but what people in the field believe with all the current information. Today, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that birds are dinosaurs, and almost all Paleontologists agree with that. So no, no one will edit the article to represent the few, with their small amount of evidence that birds are not dinosaurs, in equal weight to the many, who have a greater amount of evidence.

And no, this is not militant Atheism. I think that you will find that many Paleontologists are religious. In fact, Robert Bakker, the man who started the Dinosaur renaissance is a Christian. This is not a war against religion. The knowledge in feathered dinosaurs goes against the belief that birds are not dinosaurs but not in any way against religion. Edaphosaurus (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Bad Cladogram

The cladogram is quite outdated. In the current one, Coelophysoids are within Ceratosauria, Ovriaptorosauria is sister to Therizinosaurs, I don't even with the internal phylogeny of carnosauria, and deinonychosauria is used as monophyletic. These have all been rejected for quite awhile, odd that they're still present here.Capra walie (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Updated with one from 2013 based on a much more robust character set. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Aurornis and Anchiornis as troodontids

The cladogram list them among Troodontidae, but in their respective articles they're shown as basal avialans, which is the result most recent phylogenetic analyses arrive at. Shouldn't we change this (for the sake of consistency)? JaneStillman (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The cladogram is credited to a 2013 paper which does not find ANY of the listed taxa to be troodontids, so somebody falsified this info. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Thecodont" theory

At present, the text reads: "The leading dinosaur expert of the time, Richard Owen, disagreed, claiming Archaeopteryx as the first bird outside dinosaur lineage. For the next century, claims that birds were dinosaur descendants faded, with more popular bird-ancestry hypotheses including 'crocodylomorph' and 'thecodont' ancestors, rather than dinosaurs or other archosaurs." I think this should mention Gerhard Heilmann, as he also had influence on the popularity of the "Thecodont" theory. I also think this should remove the reference to "or other archosaurs," because all these proposed groups (birds, dinosaurs, crocodylians, "thecodonts," etc.) are archosaurs. 71.191.163.95 (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Dinosaur integument"

Now that feathers are known to have been extremely widespread within Dinosauria feathered dinosaurs are no longer "special" enough to justify treating them separately. Consequently, I think that the the general contents of this article would be more appropriate as part of a broader article on dinosaur integument and maybe some of the more specific discussions of early feathers as part of an article on the evolution of feathers. Abyssal (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not special enough to experts, but certainly to most ordinary readers. The fact that we have something like Jurassic World shows that there is still a lot of people that need access to this knowledge specifically. But that doesn't rule out that an article about their integument in general could be made, I still have the old draft for "life appearance of dinosaurs" that I don't know what to do with... FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Although the vast majority of feather discoveries have been for coeleurosaurian theropods"

this article makes the claim that evolutionary biology resolved the puzzle of dinosaurs "evolving" into birds but raises the question why coeleurosaurian theropods are the only species showing feathers could evolve to all modern day birds?

this should be deleted its not common sense that dinosaurs evolved into birds due the lack of variety of such kind. by the way they got extinct to evolve to the complexity of birds found today. (2804:7F7:D682:69EB:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC))

"why coeleurosaurian theropods are the only species showing feathers could evolve to all modern day birds?"

Similarities of the hands of Deinonychus, a non-avian paravian, and Archaopteryx, an avian paravian

Because of, other than the feathers, the similarities of their skeletons, e.g. the bipedal stance, the similarities of the claws, and the overall skeleton shape and bone properties. See origin of birds.

"its not common sense that dinosaurs evolved into birds due the lack of variety of such kind. by the way they got extinct to evolve to the complexity of birds found today."

What is "common sense" about the origin of birds then? Editor abcdef (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All modern birds descend from a single common ancestor similar to Ichthyornis. Ichthyornis and its type, in turn, evolved from more primitive birds, and finally from a single population of non-bird coelurosaurs. That's how all evolution works. You seem to be under the impression that different birds evolved from different dinosaurs? If so, that has never been supported by any evidence or even suggested by anyone - it would mean "birds" are not a real group! Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"You seem to be under the impression that different birds evolved from different dinosaurs?"

Where did I suggest that? Editor abcdef (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

To answer the actual question about the statement that the majority of feather discoveries on non-avian dinosaurs were found on coelurosaurs, why should this statement be deleted? The current information, supported by most (if not all) sources, is that the majority of non-avian feathered dinosaurs are coelurosaurs. Editor abcdef (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was in reply to the original post, not to you. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay then, I removed most my post that replied to you. Editor abcdef (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Grallator Feather impressions

I think it appropriate now to include some sort of reference to Grallator. In the past, some have expressed skepticism (including the author of the blogpost linked below) but this was not a well-known finding, and still is not, and 20 years later, after two decades of frequent findings of feathered dinosaurs, it now seems almost unsurprising.What do people think?

If the proper sources can be cited, and it is still considered a feather impression, it would make sense to add. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Quill Knobs on Concavenator and others.

Evolutionary paleontologist Darren Naish dared to express skepticism over quill knobs in a Concavenator from Spain. He wrote in a 2010 blog post, "Animals sometimes have weird, irregularly spaced tubercles arranged in lines on various of their bones, typically located on intermuscular lines (they presumably represent partially ossified attachment sites for tendinous sheets or similar structures): I've seen them on mammal bones.65.255.88.233 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2018.1485153?journalCode=ujvp20 Dinomarek (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Tell me if I missed any.65.255.88.233 (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Cladograms seem to contradict each other

The in-text and file/image cladograms seem to contradict each other.

In the in-text coded cladogram, we show -

• Sciurumimus - filamentous feathers
• Tyrannosauroidea – plumulaceous feathers
• Compsognathidae – plumulaceous feathers
• Ornithomimosauria – plumulaceous feathers
• Alvarezsauridae – plumulaceous feathers
• Therizinosauroidea – plumulaceous feathers

which, if I understand 'plumulaceous' correctly, means all apart from Sciurumimus had down feathers.

However, in the image Dinosauria_phylogeny_and_integument.png, we show -

• Sciurumimus - monofilaments
• Tyrannosauroidea – tufts of filaments
• Compsognathidae – monofilaments
• Ornithomimosauria – open pennaceous feathers
• Alvarezsauridae – monofilaments
• Therizinosauroidea – brush-like filaments

This description suggests Compsognathidae and Alvarezsauridae had filamentous feathers similar to Sciurumimus, and that Ornithomimosauria had more than just down.

So, does one or both need to be corrected, or do we just need to define our terms? I think it would probably be a good idea to add a section at feather where we define the different types, so that people can follow this article properly. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I was going to post something about this and someone fortunately had already noticed it. I followed the descriptions by Benton et al. (2019).[3] Sinosauropteryx and Sinocalliopteryx are described as being covered in monofilaments, but Godefroit et al. (2013) say 'plumulaceous feathers' (presumably the same as 'tufts of filaments'). Interestingly, Currie & Chen (2001) said Sinosauropteryx had feathers with primary branching,[4] which is equal to 'open pennaceous feathers' in Benton's nomenclature and Richard Prum's Stage III (that's "ratite"-like integument). The three basal maniraptorifom clades have poorly preserved integument, but Zelenitsky et al. (2012) consider "Ornithomimus" edmontonicus to have had pennaceous feathers.[5] I would like to divide 'closed pennaceous feathers' into two types - symmetrical/Stage IV (e.g. oviraptorosaurs, Anchiornis, hesperornithiforms, kakapos) and asymmetrical/Stage V (e.g. Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, flying birds) - but this is likely too complicated. Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I just updated the page using the new cladogram from Xu (2020), which comes with a better explanation of terms and the exact distribution of feather types and doubts regarding their indentification. Kiwi Rex (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

First Image

I propose that we change the first image given the beliefs of the person who illustrated it, there are plenty more illustrations of non-avian dinosaurs we know for a fact had feathers in Wikimedia commons. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be wise to check if an image of a similar quality (because the one here is arguably quite good) is available. If so I don't see an issue with replacing the existing image. As a sidenote, this article looks like it could use some work. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that. Outside of the artist being quite yikes honestly, we should use at least a complete reconstruction like the ones below instead of a head that doesn't imply much about the postcranial anatomy of the specimens.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Larrayal (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think the one of Wulong would be best, as its from a published paper, and it also shows a taxon with known colouration. Acheroraptor was already a pretty random choice, since it doesn't preserve feathers anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with FunkMonk on this one, official paper + preserves feathers seems like a good candidate to represent the article. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I also agree—Wulong is an excellent pick. Since everyone seems to be in agreement, I'll go ahead and update the image on the page. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Cladogram (and other things) broken by an edit from 2022

Here's the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feathered_dinosaur&oldid=1074180780. (I imagine there's a more wiki-like way to link to it, but I'm tired / lazy / inexperienced and this is my compromise.)

Apart from breaking the cladogram - I'm not sure how, or I'd fix it, but perhaps something to do with layout? - it also removed some text about phylogenetic bracketing while leaving the text which mentions the term itself.

Those are the most egregious things I noticed, but the edit removed a lot of stuff which had either old citation-needed tags or no citations at all. I feel that at least some of that stuff probably did belong in the article and it would have been better to find relevant citations or just leave the tags where they were (/ add new ones where missing), but maybe that's a matter of taste.

Anyway, at least some of it ought to be fixed. Figuring out how much (and how) involves judgment that I currently lack - see previous comment re: tired / lazy / inexperienced.

Cheers, Robin S (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)