Evidence Dinosaurs Are Like Giant Chicks

ZeroExistenZ writes "timesonline reports the new "irrefutable" fossil evidence of dino's resembling "giant chicks" more then reptiles as formerly accepted. Gareth Dyke: "The way these creatures are depicted can no longer be considered scientifically accurate," he said. "All the evidence is that they looked more like birds than reptiles. Tyrannosaurs might have resembled giant chicks.""

Comments

The way they *are* depicted?

[dancingmad]

What's up with Slashdot's science news these days? You guys are reporting the obvious as if it was late breaking news (ozone, parasites that control hosts, now this).

The way these creatures are depicted can no longer be considered scientifically accurate

Dinosaurs have been depicted as bird-like for at least the last 20 years. Even since the 90s, Jurassic Park (the original anyway) tapped noted palentologists to give the dinosaurs what was then a contemporary view of them - fast, warm blooded, very bird like. Many contemporary depictions of dinosaurs have them behaving in a birdlike manner or looking like birds (to the point of having rudimentary or even full fledged feathers).

but ..

[eneville]

Birds are well known to be descendants of dinosaurs. Interestingly, crocodiles were around with the dinosaurs too.

Re:Hollywood movies are made to generate profit.

[LnxAddct]

The way I've understood it, and the way I believe most have understood it for decades was that dinosaurs were originally reptilic but as time went on and the species diverged through evolution, a good chunk became somewhat primitively feathered. Here are 2 depicitions that I pulled off of wikipedia( 1 and 2), but I mean this isn't news, the article is just talking about more recent dinosaurs rather then the oldest (we have fossils of the crocodilia from the late triassic period that nearly match today's crocodiles, implying that at least some were reptilic) and we already know that in the Jurassic period birds and dinoaurs with feather-like features started appearing around the same time that small mammals became abundant. This aritcle isn't news, its stating what is already known, or at the very most, taking what is known and claiming that it possibly applies to a few more dinosaurs.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Surprising at first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you're right. The genetic evidence is that both feathers and hair evoved from scales.

Re:I, for one...

[balloonhead]

Attack of the 50ft woman!

In case you don't read the article.

[beforewisdom]

I know many slashdotters are busy people who often don't read every article. In case you haven't here is a quote from the article that you will not want to miss:

The feather revelation follows a series of discoveries in fossil beds at Liaoning in northeast China where a volcanic eruption buried many dinosaurs alive. It also cut off the oxygen that would otherwise have rotted them away. Some theropod ("beast-footed") dinosaurs were preserved complete with feathery plumage. Theropod is the name given to predatory creatures that walked upright on two legs, balanced by a long tail. The feathered finds include an early tyrannosaur, a likely ancestor of Tyrannosaurus rex, two small flying dinosaurs and five other predators. Feathers are thought to have evolved first to keep dinosaurs warm and only later as an aid to flight.

In any event, I will always think of dinosaurs in terms of the cheesy special effects from that old 70's children's show "Land Of The Lost"

Re:Ontology / Phylogeny

[mrmike37]

That theory has long since been disproven:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/ontogeny.htm l

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&rls=HPID,HPID:2005-21,HPID:en&q=Ontogeny+re capitulated+Phylogeny

Re:Countermanding theory

[lawpoop]

This makes plenty of sense. There's nothing inherent about feathers that make them flight promoters. Feathers have no 'lifiting quality'. These feathers were most likely insulation for a creature with thermoregulation, like fur on mammals. It was only later that feathers were co-opted into gliding aids and later lift creators.

Note that on a flying bird, there are only a few feathers used in flight, on the wing and tail, and the rest are insulation (albeit aerodymanic insulation). Flightless fowl such as penguin and ostriches have still kept their feathers, which shows that they are useful for tasks other than flight.

Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug?

[Reziac]

I dunno who told you that, but it's a trifle exaggerated.

I used to have a flock of culls from someone who bred fighting cocks. These are about as mean as chickens get -- they are bred to be fearless and aggressive, especially with each other.

Anyway, they are not attracted to blood per se, and don't pay any particular attention to it. What chickens WILL do if they don't get enough protein in their diet (as is common if chickens are fed grain alone), is peck at the feathers on each others' butts until their tails are raw and bloody. Feathers are high in proteins that chickens can digest; that's why feather meal is an ingredient in some chicken feeds, and why they try to eat 'em off each other when on inadequate diets. (Remember bugs are much of a chicken's normal diet, and bugs are VERY high in protein.)

And sometimes the flock will gang up on a single half-grown chick and kill it, then string its entrails all over the place (trying to eat them, but guts don't break off like worms do so just wind up dragged around). This is normal culling behaviour in a lot of species -- if an individual shows weakness by going down during a minor spat, the whole flock or pack will gang up on it and kill it. (Dogs do the exact same thing, and even normally non-aggressive dogs will join in.)

Chickens are hell on not only bugs, but also mice and snakes. Snakes will try to steal eggs (no, it's not a myth, I've seen 'em do it), and will go right into the nest to do so. More than once I got woke up in the middle of the night by a hen fighting with a too-bold snake.

When I had chickens I never saw any rattlers. In the two years since the last of my chickens died off, I've killed 21 rattlers right in my yard.

Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever.

[value_added]

imesonline reports the new "irrefutable" fossil evidence of dino's resembling
"giant chicks" more then reptiles as formerly accepted ...
2. "dino's"?.
4. I'd like to kill you for submitting this.

I like No. 4, but No. 2 is wrong -- dino's is most definitely correct. Gerunds require the possessive.

Re:News??

[flyingsquid]

There are skin impressions associated with tyrannosaurs from Alberta and Mongolia, and they seem to show the same pebbly skin that's seen in the herbivorous dinosaurs. So there's no evidence of feathers in large tyrannosaurs. On the other hand, it's possible that either (a) they had feathers over part of the body only, or (b) the young tyrannosaurs had feathers, but the adults didn't (just as young ostriches have a much more extensive feather covering than the adults). The tiny, primitive tyrannosaurs known from China have feather-like coverings, but it would have looked superficially like mammalian hair rather than fluffy like a chick. I think there are also reports of scaly skin in Allosaurus as well.