# Incredible Dinasour Feathers



## daemon barbeque (Sep 20, 2011)

found in Alberta, trapped in amber for 80 Mil Years

Pictures: "Incredible" Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber

That is sooo awesome!!!


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 20, 2011)

That is cool. However I feel sad at losing the world of scaley armored dinosaurs I grewed up in


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 20, 2011)




----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 20, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> That is cool. However I feel sad at losing the world of scaley armored dinosaurs I grewed up in



Yeah, the featheres walking dino is somehow "disappointing" 
But the discovery is really something awesome. it's perfectly preserved.
Now we should find a perfectly preserved T-Rex in Amber as here, and put in under yellow streetlights somewhere in Manhattan around a Corner . I dunno how many people would crap their pants


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 20, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> That is cool. However I feel sad at losing the world of scaley armored dinosaurs I grewed up in


 
Well don't birds have scales on some parts of their bodies like on the talons and what not? Also, I thought they've been making comparisons between dinosaurs and birds for quite some time now. Perhaps only some of them had feathers?


----------



## Sephael (Sep 20, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Perhaps only some of them had feathers?


 Can't rule out that some didn't have feathers, but:
Feathers fly over new dinosaur find


----------



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

i don't read much into history nor sciece so don't stone me for asking, but what gives these people the idea that dinosaurs were reptilian? because of the bone structure similar to a lizard? because it has a tale? i truely wonder if they were fuzzy like a dog.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> i don't read much into history nor sciece



You might wanna get on that.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 20, 2011)

They don't taste good?


----------



## Sephael (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> i don't read much into history nor sciece so don't stone me for asking, but what gives these people the idea that dinosaurs were reptilian? because of the bone structure similar to a lizard? because it has a tale? i truely wonder if they were fuzzy like a dog.


 tracing the, at then known, decendents back through time mostly. Bone structure is a huge factor in tracing evolution though, and without living samples bones are about all we had to go on. Would have worked fairly well for any other time period, just happens that dinos are at the a crossroad of evolutionary divergence. They were reptilian but over the course of dinosaur evolution they changed and from them came birds, which didn't exist before dinosaurs.


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Sep 20, 2011)

Funny, because this was posted on The Chive just this morning....







Topical!

Seriously though, this is a really awesome find. Really excited to see what we can learn from these.


----------



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> You might wanna get on that.


 

i am more of a literature person. mainly crimonology.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> i* am more of a literature person*. mainly crimonology.





murakami said:


> i don't read much into history nor *sciece* so don't stone me for asking, but what gives these people the idea that dinosaurs were reptilian? because of the bone structure similar to a lizard? because it has a *tale*? i *truely* wonder if they were fuzzy like a dog.



And you're typing and spelling like that?




murakami said:


> i don't read much into history nor sciece so don't stone me for asking, but what gives these people the idea that dinosaurs were reptilian? because of the bone structure similar to a lizard? because it has a tale? i truely wonder if they were fuzzy like a dog.


To learn why, you should read up on science, and proof. They think this, because there's proof to support it and that's the conclusion they arrived at.


They didn't speculate and make things up off of the top of their heads (like wondering if they were "fuzzy like a dog") because that's the exact opposite of how science/logic work.


----------



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> And you're typing and spelling like that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
i wont try to justify how i think, write etc... i am just stating i like to read current events or read articles or books on crimonlogy or criminal activity behavior etc... so yeah, history and science are something that don't find interesting, thats all. 

and yes I KNOW they didn't just think that the dinosaurs were reptilian, thats why i asked what made them believe that. what were the facts etc...

seriously dude, why can't i ask a question related to the topic without facing condescension or ridicule? it's a forum; lighten up.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

This is interesting, though so far all finds of feathers belonged to small animals. We have skin impressions of larger dinosaurs, and know they had very reptilian skin. As animals get larger, they don't need fur or feathers to trap heat as large animals retain heat easier (This is why elephants and rhinos do not have fur). It is likely that if dinosaurs did have feathers, they were mostly on small dinosaurs. Larger dinosaurs such as t-rex may have had some small feathers or maybe quills on parts of the body but they wouldn't have really needed them.


Dinosaurs share traits with both reptiles and birds in terms of their physical structure and behaviour.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> i wont try to justify how i think, write etc... i am just stating i like to read current events or read articles or books on crimonlogy or criminal activity behavior etc... so yeah, history and science are something that don't find interesting, thats all.
> 
> and yes I KNOW they didn't just think that the dinosaurs were reptilian, thats why i asked what made them believe that. what were the facts etc...
> 
> seriously dude, why can't i ask a question related to the topic without facing condescension or ridicule? it's a forum; lighten up.


Because you said you were a literature person, but you can't type proper sentences, you can't correctly spell the thing you say you're the most interested in (criminology), and your question was essentially: I don't know anything about this at all, so *broad question here that challenges popular scientific consensus based on nothing but speculation* 

We don't all have time to teach you incredibly basic things you could learn yourself with an incredibly swift google search.

Dinosaurs Anatomy, Skin, Teeth, Brain, Food, Claws, Backbone, Whip-Tail, Sounds, Structure, Dino Bones
Dinosaur Skeleton - Enchanted Learning Software

Just two quick things I found in a few seconds explaining a few reasons why.


----------



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

haha, i appreciate you finding those links but it wasn't necessary because a simple answer would of been more than enough. 

and about teaching me basic things? 
dude, i just asked a question. it was never YOUR obligation to teach me anything; you merely appointed yourself to do it.

if you don't have enough time then why are you picking a fight over the internet?
seriously, do you have pms or are you a girl? i am not trying to start shit, but whats up with the attitude? if you don't like what i am asking then you could have just ignored me. someone else up the thread answered my question anyways, so i
dont see why you had to comment other than to ridicule me.


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> i truely wonder if they were fuzzy like a dog.



You are not entirely off the mark. Some early feathers do give the impression that the dinosaur in question is fuzzy. But it is unclear (to me at least) if that would translate into real-life fuzz, or if that appearance is simply a product of fossilization. See e.g. _Sinosauropteryx_. But do keep in mind that this "fuzz" is not in fact hairs, but a different type of structure entirely.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

A baby t rex would most likely have been covered in a soft, fuzzy down as you'd expect a chick to be, however feathers on adults would probably have been thinner.


----------



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

so with finding this new scientific discovery, what does it actually mean? i mean, do they just paint the dinosaurs in another image now because they might of been wrong interms of how the dinosaurs looked in jurassic parK? humour and aside, but will this new information benefit their research? just wondering


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> so with finding this new scientific discovery, what does it actually mean? i mean, do they just paint the dinosaurs in another image now because they might of been wrong interms of how the dinosaurs looked in jurassic parK? humour and aside, but will this new information benefit their research? just wondering



So you say you don't want to be educated, then you ask to be educated? 
Wow. There's a ton of material out there on this subject, do a little research.


----------



## Sephael (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> so with finding this new scientific discovery, what does it actually mean? i mean, do they just paint the dinosaurs in another image now because they might of been wrong interms of how the dinosaurs looked in jurassic parK? humour and aside, but will this new information benefit their research? just wondering


science is constantly repainting our picture of what we know (the only rule in science is that nothing is a fact, the best we can hope for is a theory).

Knowing that more dinosaurs had feathers will help us understand their physiology better, the feathers had to have a purpose, so the fun now will be in dreaming up the reasons. And then we get to look at what came before the split in dino lineages, and wonder if feathers were present there. And yeah it does benefit existing research, if we now assume that dinosaurs were perhaps more like birds than modern reptiles, the theories behind parental nurturing have more ground to stand on because most birds tend to care for their young, something seen very rarely among reptiles as a whole.


----------



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> So you say you don't want to be educated, then you ask to be educated?
> Wow. There's a ton of material out there on this subject, do a little research.


 
i felt that myself and that other guy derailed the topic, and i apologize to the topic creator for side tracking it. i wanted to try and
jump start the conversation again though because it seemed like an interesting topic. if you don't want to add to the topic then why bother staying here and poking holes? 

seriously, what do you gain by being like this?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

Yeah let's stop the bullshit and talk about dinosaurs guys.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 20, 2011)

Did they actually decide that they're dinosaur feathers? I had initially read that they didn't know whether the feathers were from dinosaurs or early birds. I also read that the only way they'd be able to recover any potential genetic information would involve destroying the samples, and there aren't enough of them around to justify that sacrifice. Here's hoping they find more.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

Seems like they actually found a few feathers, not just one 'set'.


----------



## Sephael (Sep 20, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Did they actually decide that they're dinosaur feathers?


article stated dinosaur and bird feathers, and one from Physorg.com stated that normal bird-like feathers, different proto-feathers and feathers like that of swimming birds were found in the amber.



> No dinosaur or avian fossils were found in direct association with the amber feather specimens, but McKellar says comparison between the amber and fossilized feathers found in rock strongly suggest that some of the Grassy Lake specimens are from dinosaurs.




Even Archaeopteryx, which for the last 150 years has been known to be the earliest bird we had found is largely classified as a dinosaur now.


----------



## murakami (Sep 20, 2011)

i find it quite amazing that they can deduce that a dinosaur evolved into birds; a large reptile turning into a small and frail, flying animal.

but if dinosaurs evolved into birds, why are their still a reptilian family around? did some of them just not evolve?


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> i find it quite amazing that they can deduce that a dinosaur evolved into birds; a large reptile turning into a small and frail, flying animal.
> 
> but if dinosaurs evolved into birds, why are their still a reptilian family around? did some of them just not evolve?



well... the simple answer is this.. lots of shit dies. like even without the intervention of humans, species can be lost at a quick rate. basically, the world used to have a much more diverse biosphere, attributed to high amounts of cO2 and oxygen in the air. basically as the years have gone on, lots of animals have disappeared leaving behind very little trace. sad, but a fact of life. 

that being said, i thought this was interesting Links Between Dinosaurs and Birds Questioned not trying to derail this thread at all... however i feel that it all fits into a diverse biosphere argument. 

also on the feathers part, im assuming one is able to distinguish a proto feather from a normal one by sight? i dont actually know, so if someone could enlighten me i'll throw some rep your way


----------



## Sephael (Sep 20, 2011)

murakami said:


> i find it quite amazing that they can deduce that a dinosaur evolved into birds; a large reptile turning into a small and frail, flying animal.
> 
> but if dinosaurs evolved into birds, why are their still a reptilian family around? did some of them just not evolve?


there were tiny dinosaurs too. 

As for the evolution part, well first remember there were hundreds if not thousands of species of dinosaurs. while most of them died out, some likely evolved into modern reptiles and while others (don't personally know if it was one species or dozens) evolved into birds. For each step of the evolution there were probably several dozen similar species that ended up interbreeding to get the best of a couple different lineages.

Not unlike human evolution, there were a lot of human-like species throughout our evolution, and modern humans are a combination of 3 distinct species interbreeding after we started to migrate (plus who knows how many times interbreeding happened far earlier in our ancestral line.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 21, 2011)

Wasn't there another dinosaur fossil for which the fossilized filaments were examined with electron microscope, yielding the colors of the feathers? In the writeup for the same story, they talked about how they ruled out the filaments being collagen. 

There's no question about the huge amount of evidence regarding at least some dinosaurs having feathers.

This story about the feathers in amber was just stunning. Thanks for posting that!


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 21, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Did they actually decide that they're dinosaur feathers? I had initially read that they didn't know whether the feathers were from dinosaurs or early birds. I also read that the only way they'd be able to recover any potential genetic information would involve destroying the samples, and there aren't enough of them around to justify that sacrifice. Here's hoping they find more.



It is rather doubtful that they could extract DNA from those samples: They are simply too old. The theoretical limit is around 1 million years for DNA preservation, after which DNA becomes so fragmented that there is basically nothing left that can be identified. So it'd be hard to justify destructive sampling in order to attempt DNA extraction.

There are a few studies that have attempted to recover even older DNA, but those tend to have been shown to be the result of contamination, have yielded suspect results, or suffer from poor protocol. And most involve the extraction of bacterial DNA, where it is extremely difficult to avoid contamination because modern bacterial DNA is found everywhere.


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 21, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Wasn't there another dinosaur fossil for which the fossilized filaments were examined with electron microscope, yielding the colors of the feathers? In the writeup for the same story, they talked about how they ruled out the filaments being collagen.



You are probably thinking of "Fossilized melanosomes and the colour of Cretaceous dinosaurs and birds" by Zhang et al:


> Here we report that melanosomes (colour-bearing organelles) are not only preserved in the pennaceous feathers of early birds, but also in an identical manner in integumentary filaments of non-avian dinosaurs, thus refuting recent claims that the filaments are partially decayed dermal collagen fibres.



National Geographic has a write-up.


----------



## Sephael (Sep 21, 2011)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> also on the feathers part, im assuming one is able to distinguish a proto feather from a normal one by sight?



I would think that the physical differences (shaft and filiment structure) would be as different as fluffy down feathers are to feathers intended for flight. I know on modern birds we can distinguish between function of feathers just by sight, for example feathers from wings are pretty easy to distinguish from bodily feathers.

As for biodiversity, I'm...well hesitant to say we are less biodiverse now. Things, living things, were vastly different back then yes, but it's not like every species we have were alive then. The nature of man alone puts us in a wide spectrum of diversity regardless of other species. Further, there have been several mass extinctions in earths history,we might still just bein a lull from the last one and the relative narrow diversity stems from that and not O2/CO2 conditions.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> It is rather doubtful that they could extract DNA from those samples: They are simply too old. The theoretical limit is around 1 million years for DNA preservation, after which DNA becomes so fragmented that there is basically nothing left that can be identified. So it'd be hard to justify destructive sampling in order to attempt DNA extraction.
> 
> There are a few studies that have attempted to recover even older DNA, but those tend to have been shown to be the result of contamination, have yielded suspect results, or suffer from poor protocol. And most involve the extraction of bacterial DNA, where it is extremely difficult to avoid contamination because modern bacterial DNA is found everywhere.



They did isolate some T-rex proteins from some tissue samples they found. It wasn't complete enough but if more samples were found it might be possible according to some scientists.


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 21, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> They did isolate some T-rex proteins from some tissue samples they found. It wasn't complete enough but if more samples were found it might be possible according to some scientists.



That involved protein and not DNA. Protein is vastly more durable than DNA, but it is also a lot harder to work with since you cannot easily determine the amino-acid sequence, nor determine the original DNA sequence from the amino-acid sequence. A lot less work has been carried out in that area, though there are some cool papers on the subject. 

I'm not sure if anyone has attempted to work with protein preserved in amber. But simply from the looks of it, it would seem plausible that the original protein _is_ preserved. But whether or not extracting protein from these samples would allow you to determine the source (given that we have no ancient references to compare with) is a different question.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> That involved protein and not DNA. Protein is vastly more durable than DNA, but it is also a lot harder to work with since you cannot easily determine the amino-acid sequence, nor determine the original DNA sequence from the amino-acid sequence. A lot less work has been carried out in that area, though there are some cool papers on the subject.
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone has attempted to work with protein preserved in amber. But simply from the looks of it, it would seem plausible that the original protein _is_ preserved. But whether or not extracting protein from these samples would allow you to determine the source (given that we have no ancient references to compare with) is a different question.



Ah yeah course like I said it was a protein, but it's a start! We don't exactly have many sources.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Sep 21, 2011)

AWWW YEAH DINOSAURS

I thought that the fact ('cause let's face it, in the face of the material evidence this is clearly no longer a hypothesis) that some dinosaurs had feathers was common knowledge amongst prehistory enthusiasts. I've known for as long as I can remember 

There was an episode of Planet Dinosaur about feathered dinosaurs on today actually.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

It is common knowledge that some dinosaurs (at least some of the small ones) had feathers, we're just unsure as to what use they had (if any) and whether larger dinosaurs had them. Many documentaries are taking some artistic liberty and adding feathers to other dinosaurs that may or may not have had feathers. I've seen some with feathered velociraptors, though I'm not aware of any fossil proof that this species had any.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Sep 21, 2011)

iirc on the programme I watched today (although as you said a certain amount is always merely speculation), looking at Microraptor fossils the feather shape and structure was very clear as (can't remember whether one or plural) the individual(s) were incredibly well-preserved, the feathers were long, filled with veins and had a very aerodynamic design-i.e. designed for gliding, I'm inclined to believe that hypothesis as the evidence is, well, there


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Captain Shoggoth said:


> iirc on the programme I watched today (although as you said a certain amount is always merely speculation), looking at Microraptor fossils the feather shape and structure was very clear as (can't remember whether one or plural) the individual(s) were incredibly well-preserved, the feathers were long, filled with veins and had a very aerodynamic design-i.e. designed for gliding, I'm inclined to believe that hypothesis as the evidence is, well, there



It's very possible. The fact it's legs were also basically wings is interesting. For evolution to go through the 'effort' of developing another set of wings you would assume they'd have a use.


----------



## Sephael (Sep 21, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> For evolution to go through the 'effort' of developing another set of wings you would assume they'd have a use.


for the most part, that isn't how evolution works. Random mutations happen and theoretically those that aid in survival are most likely to get passed on.

Can't remember which species exactly, but there is in insect that has gained and lost it's wings several times.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Sep 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> It is common knowledge that some dinosaurs (at least some of the small ones) had feathers, we're just unsure as to what use they had (if any) and whether larger dinosaurs had them. Many documentaries are taking some artistic liberty and adding feathers to other dinosaurs that may or may not have had feathers. I've seen some with feathered velociraptors, though I'm not aware of any fossil proof that this species had any.


Someone found a velociraptor that had died while brooding it's eggs.
The arms were in a position that would only make sense if the arms had feathers-they would cover most of the nest and keep the eggs warm.
Velociraptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> It's very possible. The fact it's legs were also basically wings is interesting. For evolution to go through the 'effort' of developing another set of wings you would assume they'd have a use.









Evolution doesn't always end up with the best/awesomest/most useful features being intact on something, like Sephael said. The best example I can think of is the peppered moths.
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One color isn't objectively any better than the other, it all just had to do with environmental factors and which mutation led to being able to live long enough to pass their genes on.
My point is: some genes/traits get passed on that aren't in any way doubtlessly 'better' than any other, but they persist for some environmental/social factor or another and all it'd take would be a change in that to skim that trait out of the gene pool.

Just off the top of my head, I'd think that they could have been something that attracted mates as another possibility of why they could have been helpful and how/why they persisted. They also could have been completely useless, or they could have indeed been used for gliding, it's anyone's game until we find more fossil evidence.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 22, 2011)

Sephael said:


> Can't rule out that some didn't have feathers, but:
> Feathers fly over new dinosaur find


 
Hmm... Thats interesting.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Sephael said:


> for the most part, that isn't how evolution works. Random mutations happen and theoretically those that aid in survival are most likely to get passed on.
> 
> Can't remember which species exactly, but there is in insect that has gained and lost it's wings several times.



I know.  Even so, it is very likely they had a use as they have been passed on. We've found multiple fossils to show this species was successful.



All_¥our_Bass;2671657 said:


> Someone found a velociraptor that had died while brooding it's eggs.
> The arms were in a position that would only make sense if the arms had feathers-they would cover most of the nest and keep the eggs warm.
> Velociraptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Oh awesome I hadn't heard of that find. It's not surprising they had feathers seeing as we've found smaller raptors with them.



highlordmugfug said:


> Evolution doesn't always end up with the best/awesomest/most useful features being intact on something, like Sephael said. The best example I can think of is the peppered moths.
> Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> One color isn't objectively any better than the other, it all just had to do with environmental factors and which mutation led to being able to live long enough to pass their genes on.
> ...



I'm aware of the peppered moth, but being a different colour is a very subtle evolutionary trait compared to having an extra set of wings. They could have been used for mating purposes as well, but in all likelihood they had a more practical use. The animal probably couldn't fly/glide with one set of wings, and so needed a wider surface area to enable this, therefore developing feathers on it's legs. This would explain why it had an extra set of wings which is quite a rarity in birds and similar animals.

I've studied a bit of palaeontology, and I've looked at how animals evolved to become what we recognise today, and what died in the process. An evolutionary trait such as an extra set of wings is a big change, something that wouldn't come about unless it was beneficial somehow. It just seems unlikely that the sole reason it had them was for mating purposes seeing as an extra set of wings could potentially inhibit movement.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> It's very possible. The fact it's legs were also basically wings is interesting. For evolution to go through the 'effort' of developing another set of wings you would assume they'd have a use.


http://pigroll.com/img/zoom/sharovipteryx.jpg

Since that picture didn't want to embed properly on my last post.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> http://pigroll.com/img/zoom/sharovipteryx.jpg
> 
> Since that picture didn't want to embed properly on my last post.



That's interesting, though what connection are you making?


----------



## Sephael (Sep 22, 2011)

Keeping something because they are useful is not the same as making a use of something because it was kept.

Extra colors are not simple mutations IMHO, because they require a whole separate allele that has to become dominate and then other dominate colors that might already exist have to be bred out in consecutive generations. Not like a lot of other traits where they either exist or they don't.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Sephael said:


> Keeping something because they are useful is not the same as making a use of something because it was kept.
> 
> Extra colors are not simple mutations IMHO, because they require a whole separate allele that has to become dominate and then other dominate colors that might already exist have to be bred out in consecutive generations. Not like a lot of other traits where they either exist or they don't.



Different colour mutations are very common in nature. They happen in almost every species.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

Sephael said:


> Keeping something because they are useful is not the same as making a use of something because it was kept.
> 
> Extra colors are not simple mutations IMHO, because they require a whole separate allele that has to become dominate and then other dominate colors that might already exist have to be bred out in consecutive generations. Not like a lot of other traits where they either exist or they don't.


 

green eyes are a mutation has well, yet it's something that isn't really passed down to their children otherwise i think it would be more common. the color must have to do with some sort of adaption i assume.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> That's interesting, though what connection are you making?


With that, nothing really, I just think that picture's funny and your post reminded me of it.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2011)




----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> With that, nothing really, I just think that picture's funny and your post reminded me of it.



Oh fair.  Tis a funny looking critter.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Oddly enough, watching a program about feathered dinosaurs. Microraptor and sinornithosaurus are on it. Apparently microraptor was confined to the trees because it would have had difficult walking with the feathered legs. It would have glided. Even more interesting is the fact that the teeth of sinornithosaurus had grooves on them, similar to those of the venomous modern day Gila monster. These grooves would let venom flow down them into a bite wound, and they even think they've found what appears to be where a venom gland would've been. A venomous dinosaur. Badass.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Sep 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> The animal probably couldn't fly/glide with one set of wings, and so needed a wider surface area to enable this, therefore developing feathers on it's legs. This would explain why it had an extra set of wings which is quite a rarity in birds and similar animals.


Through some wind tunnel tests with an accurate model of Microraptor and they determined that the "wings" on the legs could have been used as an airfoil for a brief moment after jumping from a branch-with the rear legs parallel to the tail which would allow the legs feathers to overlap and give a bit of extra lift after the jump.

They found that microraptor probably didn't fly but it did (probably) sort of "jump-parachuted." The arm and leg feathers would have both provided lift, but not enough to even glide in the proper sense, but too boost it's leaping range and soften the fall. They proposed that it lived in trees most of the time and that it would move from one to the other via being on a higher part of one tree and leaping onto a lower part of an adjacent tree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL0UIzU0EEc


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2011)

Isn't there some sort of flying frog that glides by using the webs on all four feet? That's _sortof_ like using four wings... 

Is my memory making things up?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2011)

Aha! The Wallace Flying Frog is what I was thinking of. It's the third frog in this vid, which is a good watch on its own.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> An evolutionary trait such as an extra set of wings is a big change, something that wouldn't come about unless it was beneficial somehow.



I'm only going to post a link to this picture, as some people are squeamish, but there are lots of mutations which happen, whether beneficial or not. Natural selection favoring one mutation over another is purely about the circumstances of the moment. 

There have been several "lobster man/boy/woman" exhibits, and those genes sometimes get passed on. In this case, the individuals who could make money with such mutations were more successful. Here's a link to a picture.

I can't imagine an environment in which this mutation is an advantage, but it came about all the same. I think there's a misunderstanding/conflation between the ideas of mutation, selection and evolution. 

Mutations which benefit the individual are more likely to be passed on.

Mutations which neither benefit nor adversely affect the individual are neutral, so if the individual is better qualified in other ways, the mutation is more likely to be passed on in concert with the better qualifications.

Mutations which adversely affect the individual are more likely to not be passed on.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 23, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Isn't there some sort of flying frog that glides by using the webs on all four feet? That's _sortof_ like using four wings...
> 
> Is my memory making things up?



There's a snake that does it too. 



Explorer said:


> I'm only going to post a link to this picture, as some people are squeamish, but there are lots of mutations which happen, whether beneficial or not. Natural selection favoring one mutation over another is purely about the circumstances of the moment.
> 
> There have been several "lobster man/boy/woman" exhibits, and those genes sometimes get passed on. In this case, the individuals who could make money with such mutations were more successful. Here's a link to a picture.
> 
> ...



I agree with you. Not sure what point you're making.  They've found the microraptor was probably not very good at walking in a normal fashion due to the feathers on it's legs, which would put it at a tremendous advantage unless it had adapted another way of getting around. Therefore, it is likely the extra wings served a beneficial purpose. I'm aware of how mutations and evolution connect, I'm simply saying it is unlikely this animal would have been successful if the wings didn't serve some sort of purpose. All the people studying it agree.


----------

