| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sinocalliopteryx article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
I have a drawing of Sincalliopteryx you could use for the article. I uploaded it at DeviantArt. Utahraptor ostrommaysorum (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Disputed warning
editI have just seen the description; it is grossly misleading to call the integument "feathers". The structures are (for the most part - see below) far more primitive hair-like structures, in life they must have looked like fur! Though they are almost certainly most similar (and phylogenetically probably rather close) to feathers, they are not feathers, just as this critter is not a "bird" by any means ;-)
Note that the authors explicitly avoid to call the structures "feathers". "Protofeathers" is the closest they come, but usually they use "filamentous integument".
It should also be pointed out that "Interestingly, feathers were also found on the metatarsus" is a bit of an understatement. ONLY on the metatarsals are structures present that come by any means close in structure to feathers and indeed seem to be "protofeathers".
But check out the specimen photo (it is beautiful BTW!) - namely the only well-preserved right pedal metatarsal. There is a big fracture running through it near the distal end. Immediately above this fracture line and to the left of the metatarsal, there is a very dark vertical line, about 1 cm long.
That is the closest thing on the entire specimen approaching a "feather"; it is far fron complete but it looks like a branching structure (unfortunately, the proximal end is missing). All other integument, as far as anyone can tell (though BAND authors would object of course...) is identical or nearly identical to hair in gross structure (= simple, unbranched fibers) but was identical to feathers in chemical composition.
BTW I noted some Japanese paleoartist doing very good work, such as here - it's actually Gigantoraptor for which the case for any body integument at all is really really weak, but nonwithstanding: that's how the stuff on Sinocalliopteryx must have looked in life (metatarsal "protofeathers" vs hairy fuzz on the rest of the body).
Someone with better knowledge of Japanese than me might want to contact that artist, asking nicely to share pics for Wikipedia perhaps? The Pachydyptes reconstruction here, apparently by the same artist, is the greatest there is and probably ever will be. Everything about it makes my heart sing with pure delight. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I modified the article accordingly, but keep in mind this is a popular encyclopedia and not a science paper. Terms like "filamentous integument" may as well be gibberish to the average reader. Anyway, are you suggesting the "hairy fuzz" of primitive coelurosaurs is not homologous with feathers? I don't think the authors suggested this. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What?
editThe Cladogram present in this article lists Orkoraptor was a Compsognathid and calls Coelurosauria "Tyrannoraptora".--65.96.242.22 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note the date of the study. Orkoraptor was only reclassified more recently. Tyrannoraptora is a valid clade defined as tyrannosaurs + birds, which may or may not be a synonym of coelurosauria, depending on the unresolved relationships of basal coelurosaurs. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)