|
|
Post by dinotoyblog on Dec 12, 2007 8:09:09 GMT -5
I think it's tomhet who so strongly despises feathered dino toys? What do other people think about this?
Although I still like the old Jurassic Park style raptors, most recently the new Papo Velociraptor for example, we now know that these reconstructions are wrong, so I consider these versions 'retro' or 'historical'. I think there is a similar set of 'oldies' restorations in one of the more elite ranges of figures.
This is fine when they are _supposed_ to be historical renditions. However, I think that any toy company, especially museum lines, whose aim is to produce realistic dinosaur figures, should always parallel the science. So while I understand how one may be tempted to mutate the arms of their Therizinosaurus figures (heretic!), I don't completely agree with it.
More feathered dinosaurs says I!
|
|
|
|
Post by Agustín on Dec 12, 2007 8:54:03 GMT -5
*waits for TTL's response*
|
|
|
|
Post by giganotoigauana on Dec 12, 2007 10:28:56 GMT -5
I think it's tomhet who so strongly despises feathered dino toys? What do other people think about this? Although I still like the old Jurassic Park style raptors, most recently the new Papo Velociraptor for example, we now know that these reconstructions are wrong, so I consider these versions 'retro' or 'historical'. I think there is a similar set of 'oldies' restorations in one of the more elite ranges of figures. This is fine when they are _supposed_ to be historical renditions. However, I think that any toy company, especially museum lines, whose aim is to produce realistic dinosaur figures, should always parallel the science. So while I understand how one may be tempted to mutate the arms of their Therizinosaurus figures (heretic!), I don't completely agree with it. More feathered dinosaurs says I! But velociraptor has not been found with feathers, no direct evidence anyway. I know relitives in china and other specimins have been found but its too hypathetical to place feathers on almost all dinosaurs with the on brought newly discovered evidence of dinosaurs like dakota who had scales and other dinosaurs scally skin whose been preserved. |
|
|
|
Post by dinotoyblog on Dec 12, 2007 11:31:48 GMT -5
Yes, the evidence that velociraptor (as a genus) had feathers is indirect, but the evidence is still exteremely robust. Every single dromaeosaur fossil with soft tissue preservation shows feathers. Why would Velociraptor be any different? Also note, there is no evidence that velociraptor had scales.
Some fossil birds do not preserve feathers - should we reconstruct them with smooth skin because the evidence for feathers is only 'indirect'?
Take another extreme example - say you find a fossil that is new species of theropod but it is missing the tail. Would you recommend that toy manufacturers create a tail-less figure? Or rather, suggest they look at the animals closest relatives to see what the back end of the animal was probably like?
Basically - say "bye bye" to scaley raptors.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetyrantlizard on Dec 12, 2007 12:00:43 GMT -5
  Down with feathered dinos! Long live juravenator, my favorite coelurosaur!  I'm pleased that I have managed to dispose of all the fuzzy dinos that somehow or other snuck into my collection ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Dec 12, 2007 12:02:11 GMT -5
I obviously don't agree. A bird of course would be incomplete without feathers but we are talking about a dinosaur. In such hotly debated subjects you cannot make assumptions, direct evidence is needed. Perhaps you could argue that the arms resemble those of an Archeopteryx, but even that by itself is not conclusive. Archeopteryx feathers are clearly imprinted, why isn't it so with the Velociraptor skeletons?
Dromaeosauridae with feathers are mostly from China; Chinese are not exactly the most ethical scientists in the world. I think it's too much of a coincidence that these dinosaurs are being found only in recent years.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Dec 12, 2007 13:05:20 GMT -5
*barfs* Agree with tomhet.
And there are no reptiles with feathers. If there are let me know. Then we can say there's a possiblity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agustín on Dec 12, 2007 13:08:43 GMT -5
*barfs* Agree with tomhet. And there are no reptiles with feathers. If there are let me know. Then we can say there's a possiblity. Dinosaurs != reptiles ( "!=" = 'not equal') |
|
|
|
Post by Thorondor 33 on Dec 12, 2007 13:08:44 GMT -5
If a company started producing feathered dinosaurs, and only feathered dinosaurs, they would lose my business.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Dec 12, 2007 13:15:52 GMT -5
*barfs* Agree with tomhet. And there are no reptiles with feathers. If there are let me know. Then we can say there's a possiblity. Dinosaurs != reptiles ( "!=" = 'not equal') well but they are close relatives to reptiles and birds  , but they are more less reptiles |
|
|
|
Post by dinotoyblog on Dec 12, 2007 19:19:04 GMT -5
Get with the program folks, the times they are a'changin! Is everyone on this forum 60 years old? Why are you all so stuck in the mud? ;D This isn't a hotly debated topic. It isn't even _debated_ amongst palaeontologists. Read this sentence a few times so that it sinks in - "all of the fossils of dromaeosaurs with soft tissues preservation have feathers! " And if that doesn't do the job, then look at this feathered dinosaur fossil (Microraptor).  That Velociraptor had feathers is not a guess - the scientific method is called using "the phylogenetic bracket". You guys are stuck in the past  pick up a National Geographic or something. I understand that you might not WANT dromaeosaurs and closely related forms to be feathered, perhaps you feel they do not look as good - but that doesn't change the fact that they actually were feathered. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorondor 33 on Dec 12, 2007 19:26:12 GMT -5
Paleontologists like Jack Horner? HA!
|
|
|
|
Post by thetyrantlizard on Dec 12, 2007 19:41:14 GMT -5
Palaeontologists might not debate it, but other scientists, especially ornithologists, disagree. Ernst Mayr (the greatest evolutionary biologist since Darwin) said categorically that birds could not have evolved from the maniraptorans, and that is more than good enough for me. Also, someone should pay more heed to Theagarten Lingham-Soliar  ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by dinotoyblog on Dec 12, 2007 19:42:20 GMT -5
This is no pet theory like scavenging rexes.
Rather, it is a scientific consensus reached by palaeontologists as a collective.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinotoyblog on Dec 12, 2007 19:55:06 GMT -5
Palaeontologists might not debate it, but other scientists, especially ornithologists, disagree. Ernst Mayr (the greatest evolutionary biologist since Darwin) said categorically that birds could not have evolved from the maniraptorans, and that is more than good enough for me. Also, someone should pay more heed to Theagarten Lingham-Soliar ;D This may be true, but we are not discussing the intricasies of bird origins and evolution here. We are simply asking - do some dinosaurs have feathers? Did mayer deny the existence of feathered dromaeosaurids? Was he aware of the evidence when he put forth his arguments (he was born in 1904 and died a few years ago), berhaps he changed his view later in life? Dromaeosaurs had feathers, this is not a point of debate. I guess the most pertinent question follows - are dromaeosaurs dinosaurs? |
|
, but they are more less reptiles
;D