Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Discover Largest Ever Dinosaur With Birdlike Wings and Feathers

sciencehabit writes: When we see birds winging their way across the sky, we are really looking at living dinosaurs—the only lineage of these mighty beasts that survived mass extinction. Yet before they went extinct, many dinosaurs sprouted wings themselves. Researchers now report finding the largest ever winged dino in China, a sleek, birdlike creature adorned with multiple layers of feathers all over its arms and torso that lived 125 million years ago. The dino was about 1.65 meters long, a little longer than a modern condor, but at an estimated 20 kilograms, it was probably nearly twice as heavy as that bird. It almost certainly could not fly, however—an important confirmation that wings and feathers originally evolved to serve other functions like attracting mates and keeping eggs warm.

34 of 47 comments (clear)

  1. WIngs are for? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Even for a flightless creature, wings could certainly help it run faster and steadier, turn quicker, and/or leap further. I've got no clue, just sayin.....

    1. Re:WIngs are for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I always wondered about Buffalo wings...

    2. Re:WIngs are for? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Even for a flightless creature, wings could certainly help it run faster and steadier, turn quicker, and/or leap further. I've got no clue, just sayin.....

      Other than leaping further, limbs would be just as useful if not more so than wings. Wings could also help you stop faster, if that was of any benefit.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:WIngs are for? by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      I always wondered about Buffalo wings...

      My I still try to find the online comic that jokes about Buffalo fingers. Tim S.

  2. I don't understand... by fleabay · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how scientists could use birdlike wings and feathers to find large dinosaurs.

  3. Need Jurassic World Reboot by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    Read another piece yesterday that mentioned the find in question here was of a very, very close cousin to the good ol' Velociraptor. The conclusion there was that the Velociraptor was likely feathered as well, and not likely to look much like the leather/scaley beasts from the movies (and, um, they weren't that big, either, apparently).

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Need Jurassic World Reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Future anthropologists probably won't realize we're feathered either.

    2. Re:Need Jurassic World Reboot by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read another piece yesterday that mentioned the find in question here was of a very, very close cousin to the good ol' Velociraptor. The conclusion there was that the Velociraptor was likely feathered as well, and not likely to look much like the leather/scaley beasts from the movies (and, um, they weren't that big, either, apparently).

      The movie mentioned that same thing about feathers and said that the public wanted big scary monsters with no feathers.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Need Jurassic World Reboot by cb88 · · Score: 1

      All humans look like patrick stewart...

    4. Re:Need Jurassic World Reboot by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Read another piece yesterday that mentioned the find in question here was of a very, very close cousin to the good ol' Velociraptor. The conclusion there was that the Velociraptor was likely feathered as well, and not likely to look much like the leather/scaley beasts from the movies (and, um, they weren't that big, either, apparently).

      Yeah, what they had in the movie looked like Deinonychus. But Velociraptor sounds like something more 12 year old boys would pay to see.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  4. Bum rap by Tablizer · · Score: 1, Funny

    It would suck to be a dino: your front arms are too short to yank off.

    1. Re:Bum rap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You're assuming their cock is as short as yours.

    2. Re:Bum rap by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Probably didn't have a penis either. You'd just rub your cloaca up against your mate's,and transfer the sperm that way.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. Feather origin still unclear by Webs+101 · · Score: 5, Informative

    (I was a grad student of John Ostrom's once upon a time.)

    This may be "the first evidence of feather morphologies and distribution in a short-armed (and probably non-volant) dromaeosaurid" but this dinosaur says nothing about the origins of flight feathers. It lived 25 million years AFTER Archaeopteryx, so there were certainly flight feathers around for a very long time before it. This is really no more surprising than the fact that ostriches and emus still have feathers.

    The real question, which remains unanswered, is the exact relationship between dromaeosurids and birds and whether flight originated from the ground up (use of drag to control running) or the top down (use of drag to create lift).

    --

    "Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward

  6. Birds are not living dinosaurs, by fredrated · · Score: 2

    they are birds. It's called speciation.

    1. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      My first thought on that was that surely crocodiles, alligators, and turtles are also modern descendants of the dinosaur lineage. I don't think they evolved from small mammals.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Dinosaur" is not a species. Nor is "bird."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by Ken_g6 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    4. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Argumentum ad xkcd
      Proof by intimidation.

    5. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, if you redefine the word 'dinosaur'.

      Oh look. That's what they did.

      I'll stick with the old definition of dinosaur: reptiles that lived millions of years ago.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    6. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by Xtifr · · Score: 2

      "Reptile"is another word that no longer has a solid scientific definition. (In large part because of birds.)

      The classic definition of reptile (since you're so enamored of classic, outmoded definitions of terms) includes being cold-blooded, though, so Dinosaurs wouldn't qualify anyway.

      But if you really enjoy speaking your own variant of English that is out of sync with what most people speak, more power to you. Just don't expect people to understand your antiquated and bizarrely anti-scientific terminology. Perhaps you can also refer to fire as "phlogiston-release". :)

    7. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Thank you for finding a topic other than "Pluto is/isn't a planet" for Slashdot to uselessly quibble about!

    8. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Wikipedia article I linked to explicitly says that my definition is what most people consider to be correct. It's only a new generation of 'dinosaur experts' that have decided they don't like that definition, and have came up with a new classification system. Now, only one particular group of ancient reptiles counts as dinosaurs, based solely on their hip joint, even though many of that group don't fit at all the classic view of dinosaurs.

      As a point of fact, the term 'dinosaur' is itself mis-descriptive because neither part of the word is particularly accurate to the new classification. I guess the word should join phlogiston on the heap of discredited scientific lore.

      ---------------

      Fine. I get it. New crops of scientists have different views from their predecessors. They look at things from a different angle, make different assumptions, and produce different classifications. Eventually new models are agreed on, even though those new models are also open to re-interpretation by the next wave of scientists. So, just as I'll wait for Pluto to again be called a planet in its own right, I'll wait for dinosaurs to include ancient reptiles that seem to fit the template better than the hummingbird does.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by Trogre · · Score: 1

      XKCD is wrong.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    10. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      My first thought on that was that surely crocodiles, alligators, and turtles are also modern descendants of the dinosaur lineage. I don't think they evolved from small mammals.

      No... Just like mammals are not descendants of dinosaurs. Not all prehistoric animals were dinosaurs, only the birds were. The reptile and mammal ancestors were contemporary with dinosaurs but were different groups. Think of them as respectively furry, scaly and feathered prehistoric -saurs, with the feathered being the dinos.

    11. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Picky picky.

    12. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Is the current scientific consensus also "wrong"?

      Scientific consensus is that birds are modern theropod dinosaurs.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are usually defined as the group consisting of Triceratops, Neornithes [modern birds], their most recent common ancestor (MRCA), and all descendants

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    13. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Birds are dinosaurs because they are the descendants of dinosaurs. It's called taxonomy.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    14. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Crocodilians (crocs and alligators), testudinid (turtles and tortoises), dinosaurs (including their minor group of birds), are all archosaurs, along with some extinct groups like mosasaurs. Lizards and snakes are on a different lineage. I forget where the pterosaurs fit in.

      "Reptile" is a taxonomic bucket list. Best avoided.

      Mammals are more closely related to the archosaurs than the lizards.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    15. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Words are important, particularly when you're talking about taxonomy.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    16. Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      All living dinosaurs are birds. You're wrong; Randall Monroe is right.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. Incomplete headline by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Researchers Discover Largest Ever Dinosaur With Birdlike Wings and Feathers

    ...that we know of so far. There could have been a larger one we haven't discovered yet.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  8. Too fanciful. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    They depict a large fearsome creature in blue. Not at all like a friendly yellow bird. So it is not Big Bird.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  9. Re:Click Bait by almitydave · · Score: 1

    "Largest Birdlike Dinosaur Ever" seems a more apt description.

    I'd argue that's more misleading. Although the technical definition of "dinosaur" excludes pterosaurs, it's worth nothing that there were some rather large ones, notably Quetzalcoatlus which had a ~35 ft. wingspan, but wasn't feathered - it had wings of a thin fleshy membrane, like a bat.

    So "dinosaur with birdlike wings and feathers" is an important distinction.

    --
    my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
    I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're