Dante Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) A discovery in China has prompted researchers to question the scaly image of dinosaurs. Previously, experts thought the first feathered dinosaurs appeared about 150 million years ago, but the find suggests feathers evolved much earlier. This has raised the question of whether many more of the creatures may have been covered with similar bristles, or "dino-fuzz". The team describe the fossil in the journal Nature. Hai-Lu You, a researcher from the Insitute of Geology in Beijing, was part of the team that discovered the fossil. He told BBC News he was "very excited" when he realised the significance of what his team had found. The filaments or 'protofeathers' are clearly visible on the fossil He described the filaments seen on the body of the new dinosaur, which the team has named Tianyulong confuciusi, as "protofeathers" - the precursors of modern feathers. "Their function was probably display, as well as to keep the body warm" he said. Dr You's team noticed that the filaments on the base of their dinosaur's tail were extremely long. These, they suggest, might have evolved for show, and may even have been coloured. "The world of dinosaurs would [have been] more colourful and active than we previously imagined," he said. The small dinosaur is housed at Tianyu Museum of Nature in Shandong, China Muddying the water Dinosaurs can be categorised into two large families - the Saurischia and the Ornithischia. The Saurischia family includes the theropods - thought to be the ancestors of modern birds. Fossils of these dinosaurs have revealed that some of them were feathered. But the newly-discovered dinosaur is a member of the Ornithischia group - all previously thought to have reptilian scales. Professor Lawrence Witmer, a paleontologist from Ohio University, says this "really muddies the waters" of what researchers know about the origin of feathers. It suggests that their origin might go right back to the earliest ancestors of all dinosaurs - more than 200 million years ago. "The bad news is that something we thought was neatly wrapped up is now not so neat," said Professor Witmer. "We now need to rethink what the coat of the ancestral dinosaurs actually was." He added: "But the good news is that we can now look at existing evidence with new eyes - going back to old fossils and asking if there is evidence of any of these filaments." The team, who named the dinosaur after the Tianyu Museum of Nature, where the fossil is housed, also dedicated part of its name to the philosopher Confucius to reflect how it has changed the modern view of dinosaurs. "Maybe all dinosaurs, even the predominantly scaled ones, had fuzzy parts," added Professor Witmer. "And if they were covered in a fuzzy coat, what does that tell us about their physiology? Perhaps they were warm-blooded. "We now need to think completely differently about the evidence we already have." BBC News Edited March 19, 2009 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I trust any news report that uses the word "dino-fuzz". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 hum, thats certainly an interesting idea, feathery dinosaures. i had been aware for years that raptors most likly had feathers, but the idea it was more wide spread is very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 This has been developing for years. I like the idea of a connection between reptiles and birds. Well, not the idea...there IS a connection. But yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I trust any news report that uses the word "dino-fuzz". Well, it's BBC News - quite trustworthy. Clearly they're dumbing it down a bit for the readers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 "Dr You"....awesome. The feather theory has been around for a while (it was viable enough that they added a few to the Velociraptor - even though they were the completely wrong type. Awful film). It's just a matter of finding out how each dinosaur had different feathers. And then find out if they were all sorts of lovely colours (although that'll only be possible if we find enough DNA - I think a few tiny portions of dino DNA has been found - and clone the buggers. Or make a time machine, but that's utterly stupid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluey Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I trust any news report that uses the word "dino-fuzz". i was reading an article about ... i forget... hamsters or something ~ and it actually used the words "when they're not happily nomming on carrots..." O_o ...then again i WAS reading londonLITE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jav_NE Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I zoned out reading it. Does it really matter? It was like a bajillion years ago and doesn't influence us today. Maybe they will change the appearance of dinos slightly in films as a result, whey, what a waste of research money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamba Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I zoned out reading it. Does it really matter? It was like a bajillion years ago and doesn't influence us today. Maybe they will change the appearance of dinos slightly in films as a result, whey, what a waste of research money. Yes, yes, of course this discovery will in no way effect or contribute to comparative genetics/anatomy, the general theories behind evolution or anything to do with behavioural genetics. Maybe they should have all become footballers so that they can be paid millions and millions of pounds to kick a ball around a piece of grass just to amuse an entire army of people insistant on superimposing the teams trials and tribulations onto their own live in an attempt to ignore their own excuses for ones. Oh wow, look I can generalise about shit I don't understand or care about too. [On topic] Interesting subject for those who are into this kind of thing. It's nice to see some new evidence in this particular area as (as far as I'm aware) there has been nothing to contribute to the several evolutionary questions surrounding it. It could point to there being several independant emergences of feathers across all dinosaurs but there being some form of feathers earlier on is far more likely. Title of the topic is misleading though. The article isn't stating that feathers were the norm, just more common than we thought before (which I'm pretty sure amount to less than 10).- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowV7 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 First thing I thought was giant chickens when I read the title Also why is pretty much all the first post bolded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jav_NE Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yes, yes, of course this discovery will in no way effect or contribute to comparative genetics/anatomy, the general theories behind evolution or anything to do with behavioural genetics. Maybe they should have all become footballers so that they can be paid millions and millions of pounds to kick a ball around a piece of grass just to amuse an entire army of people insistant on superimposing the teams trials and tribulations onto their own live in an attempt to ignore their own excuses for ones. Oh wow, look I can generalise about shit I don't understand or care about too. Steady on. For one, i dont care for football or the way players are overpaid, so that is a pointless argument. And two, my opinion on this discovery is my own and shouldn't be of concern to you if you really care about this stuff. It's just that i personally don't care. I believe in evolution already, so i'm not overly wowed by these so-called breakthroughs. You find it interesting though, as i'm sure others do, and that's your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I love dinosaurs. So this does interest me. I actually read one of my old DK books about them in bed the other night, instead of one my novels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamba Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Steady on. For one, i dont care for football or the way players are overpaid, so that is a pointless argument. And two, my opinion on this discovery is my own and shouldn't be of concern to you if you really care about this stuff. It's just that i personally don't care. I believe in evolution already, so i'm not overly wowed by these so-called breakthroughs. You find it interesting though, as i'm sure others do, and that's your call. It's fine for you not to care. You stated an opinion about the project being a waste of money and therefore meaningless and I was just disagreeing with you wholeheartedly. The football was just a point of comparison on a great deal more money being spent on something far less productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluey Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Maybe they should have all become footballers so that they can be paid millions and millions of pounds to kick a ball around a piece of grass just to amuse an entire army of people insistant on superimposing the teams trials and tribulations onto their own live in an attempt to ignore their own excuses for ones. Oh wow, look I can generalise about shit I don't understand or care about too. aaaaaaaah jamba you idiot dinosaurs would be crap at football! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten10 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 i was reading an article about ... i forget... hamsters or something ~ and it actually used the words "when they're not happily nomming on carrots..." O_o ...then again i WAS reading londonLITE Should have been reading the Metro. The better of the free newspapers. But I'm a bit Meh in regards to the dinosaurs. I mean does this mean the £1.50 I spend buying that dinosaur magazines all those years ago to get the glow in the dark T-Rex is now wrong? Same with Pluto, I'm pissed off about that. All those stupid rhymes they taught me in school now mean jack all. My Very Easy Method Just Speeds Up Naming P... DWARF Erasing my past and making it wrong. I'll go calm down and come back later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbob Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Interesting theory Dr You has, early signs of evolution shown. I for one am interested in Dinosaurs and have been since school (juniors). Will read this article more in depth later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) I don't trust the BBC an inch when it comes to science reporting, so I also read the original article in Nature which thankfully they gave a(n indirect) reference to. Firstly it's worth noting that while this is still very interesting, it isn't nearly as revolutionary as the BBC are implying - dinosaurs are as unquestionably ancestral to birds as fish are to humans, and it was already thought that feathers first evolved on dinosaurs, with various feather-like structures being previously found. What this discovery does suggest, however, is that such structures both emerged much earlier than previously thought, and are directly related to modern bird feathers, rather than simply carrying out the same function. This sheds some light on various subtle evolutionary relationships as well as on the development of feathers themselves. And of course it gives us more information about dinosaur lifestyle, but the quotation from the BBC article about possible warm-bloodedness sounds a bit absurd to me - anything else aside, it's not like birds are warm-blooded, yet they have feathers. It's quite possible the reporters just tried to squeeze an interesting quote out of the guy, whatever its validity. Edit: Lol, of course (most) birds are warm-blooded, God knows what I as on about. The rest stands. Edited March 22, 2009 by Supergrunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyellowbloke Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Wow, interesting stuff. I agree with Supergrunch though that the BBC have exaggerated the story from the original findings. There is no indication in the original research that feather structure were the norm or that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Still, interesting stuff as to when feathers first came about and the fact that much is still unknown about dinosaurs external appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 "Dr You"....awesome. Yeah that's right I'm bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 It's fine for you not to care. You stated an opinion about the project being a waste of money and therefore meaningless and I was just disagreeing with you wholeheartedly. The football was just a point of comparison on a great deal more money being spent on something far less productive. I have to say that I agree with you there. Basically research into anything historical seems to be a waste of money, then, as it doesn't directly affect the present. Wrong! Studying dinosaurs full stop, or any other extinct distant species is just as pointless if that were to be true. I for one know that studies using ancient DNA (although they can be questioned due to contamination) have yielded information about the evolution of host-infected pathogens, allowing us to know the pattern of changes that can be monitored and used to predict further changes within them. Of course, this wouldn't be possible had we not known about the infected species in question! If anything, this is no different to learning history and wishing for the 'truth'; and as you have pointed out, there are far greater wastes of resources than this research. @Supergrunch - That seems quite shocking. I had no idea that BBC News got things as terribly wrong as some of the other places; you'd think that having one of the world's most popular websites would mean they might run things by proof-checking every now and then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Not really that big a deal, since the idea that Dinosaurs had reptile skin has always been an assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solo Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 I guess that gives Spielberg an excuse to go back to Jurassic Park and CGI some feathers on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 @Supergrunch - That seems quite shocking. I had no idea that BBC News got things as terribly wrong as some of the other places; you'd think that having one of the world's most popular websites would mean they might run things by proof-checking every now and then. As far as I can tell, every news source that isn't specifically about science makes these kinds of errors. The vast majority of science reporting is basically rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts