Poll: So let's talk about dinosaurs, and Feathers.

[Michel Henzel]

While I personally think they look cooler without feathers, if the facts say that some had feathers than that is the way it is.

Like how T-rex in the past was displayed in a more vertical posture compared to the more horizontal posture we see today.

 

[Saelune]

I actually worked at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History for a year as a guide. I can answer a few questions about dinosaurs if anyone is interested.

For example, the only dinosaurs that had feathers were from the order Theropoda. Theropods were bipedal and typically carnivorous. It includes raptors, allosaurs, carnosaurs, tyranosaurs, etc. Theropods were also distinguished by having a V-shaped hip bone that allowed for faster running. This hip formation is called saurischian meaning "lizard-hipped" and dinosaurs with C-shaped hip bones were called ornithischian or "bird-hipped." Which is ironic because birds evolved from Theropods, and more specifically the proto-dromaeosaurs. Proto-dromaeosaurs were the direct answers of the raptors that we all know and love such as velociraptor, utahraptor and deinonychus.

Archaeopteryx, sometimes referred to as "the first bird," appeared in the fossil record during the Jurassic period and is among the earliest known dinosaurs capable of flight. By the Cretaceous period, early true birds had appeared though many bird-lizards were still flying around.

It's also a common fallacy that pterosaurs like pteranodon and ramphorhynchus were also dinosaurs. In fact, they were cousins to the dinosaurs who split off sometime in the mid to late Triassic period somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 million years ago. Dinosaurs, pterosaurs and crocodillians are all members of the larger archosaur group.

This means that the only modern descendants of the archosaurs are birds, alligators and crocodiles. And yes, birds are dinosaurs in the same way that humans are primates.

Scientific classifications of things I find tend to be...counter-intuitive to the layman, and often unhelpful. Such as tomatoes not being a vegetable, even though for any practical use of them considering them a vegetable is probably more useful.

Slight tangent aside, what then makes something a "Dinosaur"?

 

[Saelune]

I'm guessing a lot of scientist have long suspected that dinosaurs had more in common with birds than reptiles, hence the "raptor" in "velociraptor". That said a velociraptor covered in feathers is more laughable than terrifying... until it rips your intestines out.

Velociraptors were never terrifying in the first place, I believe the dinosaur you're thinking of is a "Utahraptor".

A horrifying thought to have door to door raptors.

 

[Riverwolf]

I BLOODY FREAKING LOVE FEATHERS!! XDD

No, seriously. I love feathered dinosaurs.

And for clarity, I didn't just grow up with the original Jurassic Park. I saw it when I was five years old in the theaters. Not just any theater, either; this thing had a screen big enough to fit, perhaps, five standard-sized screens. (Sadly it was torn down a few years ago.) I love that movie, and I've always loved dinosaurs, even before we knew about feathers. So I've got nothing against the scaley depiction either.

Thing is, I've actually gotten so used to feathered dinosaurs now, from being exposed to some beautiful paleo-art to seeing lots of youtube science videos on the subject for so long, that I've normalized the concept to the point where non-feathered dinosaurs now look almost goofy and naked to me. Similar to how I think most of us see earlier depictions of dinosaurs as slow and fat.

Plus, anyone else remember when we were kids, how everyone was saying that we'd never know for sure what colors dinosaurs really were? Guess what. Feathers allow us to do just that. XD Among the ones whose color we now know includes the famous archaeopterix, which turns out to have had the shiny black hue of a crow. This makes me hopeful that we might one day know with good confidence even more things that they say "we'll probably never know", such as how they sounded.

Scientific classifications of things I find tend to be...counter-intuitive to the layman, and often unhelpful. Such as tomatoes not being a vegetable, even though for any practical use of them considering them a vegetable is probably more useful.

Slight tangent aside, what then makes something a "Dinosaur"?

Unlike the person you're talking to, I am not in any way an expert. However, in the aforementioned videos I've seen, the term "non-avian dinosaur" seems the favored one when referencing the "traditional" dinosaurs; i.e., the ones that went extinct in the K-Pg event. It is a bit clunky, but it's functional when talking about this from a scientific perspective.

 

[pookie101]

i do prefer the look of the featherless ones, they look more dangerous but still a giant ass bird the size of a telephone pole saying "polly wants a cow.. NOW" is awesome

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Eh, feathers or no feathers, I love 'em all the same. Ever since I was a kid, dinosaurs have fascinated me to no end. Sure the thought of dinosaurs with feathers is weird, but hey, I can get used to it...

 

[Saelune]

Scientific classifications of things I find tend to be...counter-intuitive to the layman, and often unhelpful. Such as tomatoes not being a vegetable, even though for any practical use of them considering them a vegetable is probably more useful.

Slight tangent aside, what then makes something a "Dinosaur"?

Unlike the person you're talking to, I am not in any way an expert. However, in the aforementioned videos I've seen, the term "non-avian dinosaur" seems the favored one when referencing the "traditional" dinosaurs; i.e., the ones that went extinct in the K-Pg event. It is a bit clunky, but it's functional when talking about this from a scientific perspective.

Its just...re-labeling things on a cultural level is so difficult...hell, we call movies movies...cause they move...get it? And we use plenty of out of date tech and concepts as symbols cause we're used to them. Most symbols for phones are based on old "Dog-Bone" rotary phones.

Plus, to continue my earlier mini-rant, ok, Im sure as a scientist the classification methods and categories make sense and are very useful and neccesary, but it is confusing when things that seem like a thing scientifically arent. But alot I have to wonder, as an uninformed person admittedly, how much is its own stubbornness? That many things have "true" in its classification, be it animals or fruits or whatever, maybe we rely on old out of date classifications and categorizations? If what we know about prehistory and its animals today were known when classifying them was being developed, how different would they be then?

 

[Satinavian]

I have no problem with the feathered dinosaurs. As it is only Therapods anyway, most (and most of the well known) dinosaurs were most likely not feathered. For the rest, well science marches on.

However i still do have a (small) problem with using Dinosaurs only for Ornithishia and Saurishia, where many of the famous "dinosaurs" like various Pterosauria or Ichthyosaurs are not included. But that is more of a naming preferrence than anything else.
But really, did they have to make the Pterodactylus a non-dinosaur ?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Fuck the feathers.

Sorry, but I grew up on awesome dinosaurs.

And seeing as we'll never see an actual dinosaur, and thus will never have concrete proof that any of them except perhaps the smaller ones had any, I'm secure in holding to my guns that these things looked rad and not pathetic.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I reserve the right to be disappointed they aren't totally the amazing ancient land-dragons I knew them as growing up. However, if the science says they had feathers, then they had fucking feathers and I just need to deal with that.

 

[Riverwolf]

Fuck the feathers.

Sorry, but I grew up on awesome dinosaurs.

I think most of us did.

And seeing as we'll never see an actual dinosaur,

Spoiler

and thus will never have concrete proof that any of them except perhaps the smaller ones had any,

Spoiler

I'm secure in holding to my guns that these things looked rad and not pathetic.

Spoiler

Facetiousness aside, Dakotaraptor, discovered last year, was the largest dromeosauroid (aka, raptors) thus found, and they undeniably had feathers. Keep in mind, by "largest dromeosauroid", I mean these guys stood just over 2 meters (~6ft) tall (a little bit taller than the average adult human), and were about five meters (~18ft) long. They were bigger than the raptors in Jurassic Park.

Meanwhile, the largest dinosaur with 100% confirmed feathers is Yutyrannus, which was a tyrannosauroid from China that was 9 meters (~30ft) long and just under 3 meters (~9ft) tall; this guy was the size of a bus. (Keep in mind, this does not 100% confirm the most controversial set of feathers, that of the t-rex. While they most likely had some kind of feathers, which could easily just mean a few bristles here and there like with elephant fur, childhood is still mostly safe there.)

However, a thing to remember is that "feathers" here is a bit... not quite what you're thinking. Except when talking about arm and/or tail plumage, the bulk of the "feathers" invovled were single-shaft stalks, casually dubbed "dino-fuzz." To most of us, these would probably seem more like mammal fur than bird plumage.

Regardless of feathers or not, these creatures were still fast, massive bundles of teeth and claws, just as capable of making you a quick snack as they've always been. Remember that whole thing a while back about the "likelihood" of T-rex being a scavenger because of "reasons"? Well, we now have confirmed evidence from healed-over bite marks that the king was, indeed, a hunter, and a ferocious one.

 

[TakerFoxx]

I don't care for them. Yes, I know feathered theropods was how it actually was. Yes, I know JP-style raptors probably never existed in any way, shape, or form. Yes, I know science is science and all that. But I reserve the right to go fanboy ga-ga over my horribly inaccurate but oh so very awesome scaly monsters of my childhood and be filled with disappointment of the reality of the situation.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

(Keep in mind, this does not 100% confirm the most controversial set of feathers, that of the t-rex. While they most likely had some kind of feathers, which could easily just mean a few bristles here and there like with elephant fur, childhood is still mostly safe there.)

Funny thing about the "losing their feathers when they grow up theory." for T. rex, From what I've heard feathers are highly evolved scales as such they don't really have scales under them. So if that theory is true they would look less like dragon and more like a plucked chicken.

 

[balladbird]

Well, I love birds. Like, to the point where I'm devoting my life to their study.

So, naturally, I'm fine with feathered dinosaurs. Dino's weren't a big part of my childhood, as it was, like, I remember... I think it was moviebob who made a video about dinosaurs and feathers, and he was just ADAMANT in his hatred of the concept, and I was, like "Well, complain all you want, if that's what the science points to, the facts don't really care if your childhood demands otherwise." I just can't comprehend the absolute vitriol feathered dinosaurs awakens in some people, but I respect their right to be steadfastly stubborn about it... at least as far as I respect the right of young-earth creationists to reject that earth is older than a few millennia. XD

 

[jademunky]

I'm guessing a lot of scientist have long suspected that dinosaurs had more in common with birds than reptiles, hence the "raptor" in "velociraptor". That said a velociraptor covered in feathers is more laughable than terrifying... until it rips your intestines out.

They weighed about 15 kilos and came to 3 feet high at most. I think you'd be fine so long as you did not try to hug it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Funny thing about the "losing their feathers when they grow up theory." for T. rex, From what I've heard feathers are highly evolved scales as such they don't really have scales under them. So if that theory is true they would look less like dragon and more like a plucked chicken.

I've heard the same thing.

...though I will agree with feather-haters on one point. Tiny little wings on t-rex make those dainty little arms even more dorky-looking. I don't hate them, per se, and I think if I met one I'd be more concerned with that giant mouth for a head than any sized wings, but still. Hollywood's gonna have a hard time selling that. (Unless they, like, make the t-rex wings extend far out or something, like wings that look like swords. To, you know, scare the enemy and stuff.)

They weighed about 15 kilos and came to 3 feet high at most. I think you'd be fine so long as you did not try to hug it.

I dunno... even at such small proportions, that claw is still the size of a kitchen knife. And people like to joke about how they're just like big chickens when they have feathers, well... I interned on a farm for a few months, and one of my duties was to gather chicken eggs. This wasn't a factory farm, either, this was the real deal. I'll spare the details of the setup, but the result is that these were about as healthy as domestic chickens can get. And let me say this, some of the hens weren't exactly pleased with us moving them around to gather up the eggs that they were often laying on. They can get pretty snippy sometimes; I had to wear a special glove because I have heightened sensitivity to pain. And THAT'S not even getting into what I sometimes saw roosters do to hens. Let's just say that some hens had feathers missing from their shoulders.

Basically, even when domesticated, chickens can be fierce. Sure, even their wild fowl ancestors wouldn't have posed much of a threat to humans, but then again, chickens don't have teeth, tails, or terrible claws. Yeah, velociraptors would probably try running from you first, but if you cornered one and didn't have any weapons, I'm betting you'd at minimum get seriously hurt.

I mean, it's not like it's unprecedented for there to be incidents of serious injury (or death on VERY rare occasions) from modern bird attacks.

 

[jademunky]

I dunno... even at such small proportions, that claw is still the size of a kitchen knife. And people like to joke about how they're just like big chickens when they have feathers, well... I interned on a farm for a few months, and one of my duties was to gather chicken eggs. This wasn't a factory farm, either, this was the real deal. I'll spare the details of the setup, but the result is that these were about as healthy as domestic chickens can get. And let me say this, some of the hens weren't exactly pleased with us moving them around to gather up the eggs that they were often laying on. They can get pretty snippy sometimes; I had to wear a special glove because I have heightened sensitivity to pain. And THAT'S not even getting into what I sometimes saw roosters do to hens. Let's just say that some hens had feathers missing from their shoulders.

Basically, even when domesticated, chickens can be fierce. Sure, even their wild fowl ancestors wouldn't have posed much of a threat to humans, but then again, chickens don't have teeth, tails, or terrible claws. Yeah, velociraptors would probably try running from you first, but if you cornered one and didn't have any weapons, I'm betting you'd at minimum get seriously hurt.

I mean, it's not like it's unprecedented for there to be incidents of serious injury (or death on VERY rare occasions) from modern bird attacks.

Heh, chickens are assholes and yeah, I've heard of groups of them absolutely going murderfrenzytastic when blood was drawn and they were clustered together too much. I've got an uncle who was a pig farmer and his big rule was "stay away from the neighbour's chicken coop when visiting! Go see the pigs if you are bored."

Not saying 3-foot devilbirds cant be dangerous, just not on the Spielberg level of movie villainy.

 

[lionsprey]

im a feather guy. scientifically accurate all the way baby. and lets face it if not for childhood nostalgia we would be equally scared of feathered dinosaurs.

 

[the December King]

im a feather guy. scientifically accurate all the way baby. and lets face it if not for childhood nostalgia we would be equally scared of feathered dinosaurs.

I don't know about this- bear with me for a sec.

See, a lot of individual stories about chickens pecking people on the hand, or flapping and scaring kids don't really offset the fact that they (meaning mainly chickens) are our food. Like, by the millions. They are livestock, treated and completely rendered as property. Also, most birds are small(compared to us). Eagles and hawks and big owls are often a larger size, and pretty cool, sure- often being highly successful predators - but they can fly, too, and look the part. And I'm sure that there are other birds that are potentially threatening- like an ostrich could probably be really dangerous- but they also look relatively silly.

If feathers are canon, then so be it. But since this is about what we personally think, I don't have to like it.

 

[Lieju]

I don't get this 'oh they look less scary with feathers' argument.

It's like you guys have never been attacked by a goose or something. Scary! Unlike lizards who just kinda lay around in the sun all day.