Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Unearth Largest Feathered Dinosaur

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."

38 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. Unexpected? by medcalf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    1. Re:Unexpected? by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    2. Re:Unexpected? by Anonymous Coward · · 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!!!!

    3. Re:Unexpected? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Unexpected? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      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 disagree with you -- maybe you should reconsider!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Unexpected? by N0Man74 · · Score: 1, 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.

    6. Re:Unexpected? by rve · · 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?

      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 species fetch a much higher price. How difficult would it be for a local artisan to add some feather or down imprints to a fossil to increase its value?

    7. Re:Unexpected? by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Know what's worse? Most ancient dinosaurs probably didn't go "RAWWWWRRRR." In fact, they probably didn't have voices at all - 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.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    8. Re:Unexpected? by rve · · Score: 1

      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?

    9. Re:Unexpected? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      How do you break it to a small child that dinosaurs didn't go "RAWWWWRRRR"?

      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

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Unexpected? by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Oh, I do, I do!

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    11. Re:Unexpected? by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      They are surmising the chambers were resonators.

      This is way cool: Reconstructed parasaurolophus call.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  2. turns out it was just Big Bird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From sesame street

  3. Re:Darn the facts... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · 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...

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  4. Wheres the pics? by ThePeices · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:Wheres the pics? by Opyros · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is an article with one photo of the skull, at least. And this one shows the scientists reassembling the fossil like a jigsaw puzzle (and has an interesting writeup in general).

  5. Re:Darn the facts... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Look at what happens if you haven't seen the critter...

    Yes, because techniques haven't improved at all since 1731.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. Obligatory Cul-De-Sac reference. by conspirator23 · · Score: 1

    (And you thought only XKCD was relevant to Slashdot) http://www.gocomics.com//culdesac/2012/04/04

  7. Please, please, please by NEDHead · · Score: 2

    No reanimation until this feather thing is resolved

  8. Clothing? by retroworks · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have we eliminated the possibility that dinosaurs wore clothing?

    --
    Gently reply
  9. Re:Darn the facts... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  10. Feathers and scales are the same genes by jd · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  11. Re:More Evidence... by sysrammer · · Score: 4, 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).

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  12. Re:More Evidence... by Beelzebud · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.

  13. Re:More Evidence... by pnewhook · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  14. Re:species spelling by HybridST · · Score: 1

    This looks like a job for Googlefight!
    Looks like it's the first one.

    --
    Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
  15. Re:More Evidence... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he'd posted under his own username, he'd be +5 Funny/Troll/Insightful by now :)

  16. Re:species spelling by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  17. Re:More Evidence... by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

    That and he wouldn't be able to vote down comments like mine.

  18. Re:More Evidence... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  19. Re:More Evidence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If evolution is real, then feathers evolved for flying.

    Tell that to the emu and the kiwi, you insensitive clod.

  20. Yum! by Sussurros · · Score: 1

    Buffalo Wings won't you come out tonight?
    Come out tonight?...

    --
    I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
  21. Re:Darn the facts... by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  22. Re:More Evidence... by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

    There is a polite refutation to a whole string of stupid creationist arguments on RationalWiki.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  23. Re:More Evidence... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    Because we all know things that heavy can't fly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747

  24. Re:More Evidence... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  25. Re:More Evidence... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    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 would have had feathers. Feathers exist for the purpose of flying.

    Then why do ostriches and penguins have feathers?

    How do you reconcile that feathers would have come about BEFORE the creature was even close to capable of flying?

    As another commenter noted, feathers aren't for flying. Bats have no feathers and ostriches can't fly. Flying creatures (bats, some birds, some insects) can fly because their weight is low enough and the aerodynamics of their wings overcome that low weight.

    TFA states that this creature is supposed to be 125 million years old. Do you have any idea how long ago that was?

    Yes, about 1/32 of the age of the Earth and about 1/128th the age of the universe, unless I missed a decimal place in my math. Nowhere near as long as eternity!

    Because of radiocarbon dating or some similar technique? How do we have any idea how accurate that is?

    Do you have wikipedia? You can't tell the age of a fossil by carbon dating, as the carbon's long gone. Carbon dating is accurate to 58,000 to 62,000 years. There are other ways of determining the age of fossils, such as the rock strata it's buried in. See here.

    Some of you will probably say that this is all faith, not science.

    Science and theology are not at odds. If one seems to contradict the other, it's because your understanding of one, the other, or both is faulty.

    I believe John 8:44 pertains to you, troll. Now shoo. Grownups are talking science here, and religion is offtopic.

    And mods... good job on that one. Much better than yesterday's moderations.

  26. Re:Darn the facts... by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Nobody has ever seen a real dinosaur.

    Sure, we have. One of the best explanations I've seen was in this xkcd discussion. 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 shoulder at the moment. She's a blue-crowned (or sharp-tailed, if you prefer) conure. I have a nice photo of her head that I use as an avatar on some forums, but /. doesn't seem to implement those. She's almost as cute as the feathered dinosaur in the above link. But she has a rather serious beak that we have to keep warning visitors about. She's small and cute, but she could do a lot of damage to your hand if you try to pick her up and she doesn't trust you.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.