Posted on 10/06/2004 2:08:54 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Ancestors of the fearsome Tyrannosaurus rex were clothed in delicate feathers, a fossil discovered in China suggests. The find may come as a surprise to people used to images of Tyrannosaurus as a scaly monster. But many palaeontologists have been predicting just such a find ever since the first evidence of a dinosaur with a feathery coat came from the same site in Liaoning in 1995.
The 130 million-year-old fossil is the oldest member recorded from the tyrannosauroid family, and the first in the group with a feather-like covering. The discovery of its skull and other fragments is reported today in Nature1.
The new dinosaur has been christened Dilong paradoxus. Dilong means Emperor dragon. "We added paradoxus to its name because it's so counter-intuitive to think of feathers and a Tyrannosaurus together," says team member Mark Norell at the American Museum of Natural History in New York city.
Evidence of these so-called protofeathers is usually difficult to find because feathers decay when they are exposed to oxygen. But at Liaoning, the specimens appear to have been buried extremely quickly under fine-grained volcanic ash, helping to preserve the soft, feathery outlines.
"Dilong is an exciting find because it's so complete," says palaeontologist Thomas Holtz of the University of Maryland in College Park, "and the feathers are the icing on the cake."
Holtz hopes that the new evidence will convince the scientific community that feathers evolved on dinosaurs long before the appearance of birds. Until now, some palaeontologists have been dubious that feathered tyrannosauroids existed.
Feathered and petite
The jackal-sized Dilong was far smaller than T. rex, which roamed the Earth some 65 million years later. But Dilong shares many of its characteristics.
The meateater probably had a broad, square skull and powerful jaws, says Holtz. But while the forelimbs of T. rex had dwindled until they were almost useless, Dilong would have been able to clutch food in its hands and bring it to its mouth.
Dilong's protofeathers are not what we would recognise as feathers today, but are their evolutionary precursors. Rather than having a central shaft and barbs, they are single flexible filaments that would have covered the dinosaur's body like hair.
The protofeathers would most likely have been used for insulation rather than flight, Norell says. The giant T. rex had probably lost the featherlike features of its predecessors because, with its much larger size, it would have had more difficulty losing heat than keeping it. Tyrannosaurus chicks may have had a downy cover, though.
However, the discovery of feathered dinosaurs at Liaoning is trickling down into popular culture. The first Jurassic Park film featured mainly scaly reptiles, Norell says, "But from what I've seen of the first shots of Jurassic Park IV, all the dinosaurs now have feathers."
[From PH:] The article has a small sketch, but no pics. The footnote in the article is this: Xu X., et al. Nature, 431. 680 - 684 (2004). And in the original artice there's a link to the Letter in Nature.
Such large returns of conjecture. From so small investment in fact. You look for feathers on a dinosaur, you'll find them everywhere. Even where they ain't.
Why can't it be simply reptilian and prey? Occam not allowed to play here?
Feathers, hairs, nails/claws and scales are all made from keratin.
TOO funny!!! Thanks!
it was hardly an elaborate description in this article, so there's probably a reason. It's not been revealed here yet.
I want that baby as a stuffed toy for Christmas.
do kiwis have feathers or hairs?
What's a fish?
LOL!, just kidding.
Hadn't really considered fish in my question of tasty carnivores. Dunno, eating sea criters just doesn't do it for me like eating land aminals.
Maybe it's all those tiny little bones you have to check for while you're chomping, just so you don't choke to death.
I have eaten lots of different kinds of fish, and should probably eat more to keep the ticker from clogging up, but they're pretty much just a pain 'cause you always get that freakin' tiny little bone no matter how well they've been prepared.
Maybe it's the idea that they live in water, then wiz and poop in the same water. I've never understood how fishies could get away with that and not get some nasty diseases, except maybe they swim away from the excrement really fast, and it all drops to the bottom. That old adage "don't poop where you live" comes to mind...
On the other hand, I love shrimps and similarly easy to eat crustaceans, so I guess the tastiness and ease of consumption blows that phobia outta the water (pun intended).
Experience has taught me that my gut doesn't tolerate (raw) shellfish very well (projectile hurling), unless of course it's had the heck cooked out of it; clam chowda, fried oysters, etc.
So that's my take on fish.
hahahaaaa! :^D
"I am an Apteryx-a flightless bird with hairy feathers!"
Hair did develop from the same structure (scales) as feathers, but it developed in a branch of reptiles (not dinosaurs) that led to mammals and flying reptiles (yes, pteranadon had fur -- at least that's what a few Russian fossils indicate).
You want my parrot stuffed? LOL
How could that be? I've never seen a feather on a bird which was attached to the skeleton. Admittedly, my first-hand experience is limited to ducks, quail, doves, and turkeys, but it's hard to imagine that this would ever be the case.
I think there are microscopic attachment points for the muscles controlling feather movement. At least, that's what I got out of that exhibit.
Thanks.
You can say it is so numerous times however it doesn't make it so. The evidence never has backed up your theories or assertions no matter how many times you chant it or try to vilify people who state otherwise.
You look at the above and think, "Could be feathers or hair, either one." But let's zoom in on the little cluster near the shoulder.
Looks like the long ostrich feathers you're familiar with on a feather boa if you're a male stripper on weekends, not that I'd know personally.
More pics from the above specimen can be found at the American Museum of Natural History web page on the subject.
Too bad they didn't offer a pic to help with the feather vs. fur question.
Awesome!
Really, and from what orifice did you pull this "statistic?"
BTW, if there are any prominent evolutionists who are atheists (and I'm sure there are, though I doubt ALL of them are), might it be because of certain Christians' attitudes taht one cannot accept Christianity and evolution? I mean, hell, if you've worked all your life with the evidence and know that evolution happens, and then someone comes along and says you can't believe in God because of this knowledge, might you not feel abandoned by religion and decide it just isn't for you?
I swear, creationists have done more to turn rational people away from God than anything else I can think of. Hence, my contention that creationism is a plot by Satan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.