…and this is a 
It's Big Bird! No, it's Gigantoraptor!
Category: Fossils • Organisms
Posted on: June 13, 2007 3:24 PM, by PZ Myers
This is Gigantoraptor erlianensis, a newly described oviraptorosaur from late Cretaceous of China. It's a kind of nightmare version of Big Bird — it's estimated to have weighed about 1400kg (1½ tons for non-metric Americans).
Histological examination of the growth structure of the bones suggests that this fellow was a young adult, about 11 years old, and that they grew rapidly and reached nearly this size by the time they were 7. And since it is a young adult, there were probably bigger gigantoraptors running around. They also compared limb length to other dinosaurs, like the tyrannosaurs—gigantoraptor had longer, slimmer legs and was more of a runner than they were.
There's no sign whether it was covered with bright yellow feathers.
Xu X, Tan Q, Wang J, Zhao X, Tan L (2007) A gigantic bird-like dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of China. Nature advance online publication, 13 June 2007.
Comments
wow!
That guy standing there must have had huge cojones! He's one brave dude!
Oh wait! you mean he's not a fossil? not contemporaneous?
LIAR!
(sorry just pre-empting the fundie, creobot response) Now we've got that out of the way we can proceed to lerned discource on big ass birds....
Posted by: tony | June 13, 2007 3:32 PM
obviously having a poblm wit my kyboad!
My pardon!
Of course I meant 'lurned' ;-)
Posted by: tony | June 13, 2007 3:33 PM
How many coconuts do you suppose it needed on its 40-day ark voyage?
Posted by: Brownian | June 13, 2007 3:38 PM
Wow, i'd already read 2 articles about these things, but i hadn't realized they were THAT big.
Posted by: Brian W. | June 13, 2007 3:38 PM
Was another one that caught my attention. Been playing too much Evercrack II, so my first thought was, "They got the coloring and wings all wrong." lol
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070612_gliding_reptile.html
http://images.livescience.com/images/070612_glider_reptile_02.jpg
EQ2 Faydark Drake:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5282/eq2fdh01ec6.jpg
Posted by: Kagehi | June 13, 2007 3:43 PM
Wow. I'm looking at the tree in my yard and thinking about how this thing was taller than that.
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | June 13, 2007 3:45 PM
How many coconuts do you suppose it needed on its 40-day ark voyage?
I'm thinking T-Rex would have to help as this guy doesn't have the teeth, but I'm sure ol' T-rex would be willing to help out one of his buddies when he wasn't combing the knots out of the lamb's wool.
Posted by: afterthought | June 13, 2007 3:47 PM
Awesome!
Oh, come on! What's wrong with you people! You see a giant raptor and the first thing you think about is stupid fundies? Giant raptors are awesome in their own right! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to figure out how best to use the mutant computer-controlled clones of this thing...
Posted by: lytefoot | June 13, 2007 3:52 PM
Actually
some of the first things that came to mind were "wow - awesome - cool - big - yummy"
but since this isn't a 'free association therapy session'
the first printable thing that came to mind was how can I make fun of some fundies with this -- especially given the recent posts on the Ken Ham's freak show (aka the creation museum)
And so it goes
Posted by: tony | June 13, 2007 4:01 PM
I do have one, semi-rational comment...
Why are bird-like fossil reconstructions always shown doing the 'strut'.... It's like all of the artists are channelling Jurassic Park or something.
Posted by: tony | June 13, 2007 4:03 PM
"and reached nearly this time by the time they were 7."
Should the first instance of "time" be "height" in the quote above?
Posted by: Anthony | June 13, 2007 4:05 PM
As a non-scientist, if dinosaurs went extinct, how did birds evolve from them?
Posted by: E-lad | June 13, 2007 4:20 PM
e-lad, most dinosaurs went extinct. Not all of them. Some populations survived and their descendants became birds.
Posted by: Oran_Taran | June 13, 2007 4:24 PM
That's not a dinosaur. That's obviously a parrot crossed with a giraffe ;-)
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | June 13, 2007 4:25 PM
Moreover, e-lad, they evolved into birds (or, at least, early birds) _before_ the Cretaceous extinction.
Posted by: Herewiss | June 13, 2007 4:31 PM
umm...
I'm in ur Cretaceous
kickin ur dudez
i'd like to see the raptor-shaped cutout on the Ark for this monster to fit in.
Posted by: garth | June 13, 2007 4:35 PM
seeing large species like this still being discovered tells me that there needs to be orders of magnitude more funding for paleontology, before all the good digging areas are built over with condos or strip malls.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 4:39 PM
the first printable thing that came to mind was how can I make fun of some fundies with this -- especially given the recent posts on the Ken Ham's freak show (aka the creation museum)
Well, obviously, this new find means that not only was "The Flintstones" a documentary, but so is "Seseme Street".
Posted by: Mike Crichton | June 13, 2007 4:40 PM
My first reaction was, "What will xkcd make of this?"
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 13, 2007 4:42 PM
How did they detail the wing/forelimb, especially the clawed digits? The image indicates which bones were found and which interpolated. There is clearly enough on hand to declare the animal a new find and to lay out its size. But the image shows no limb bone fossils.
Posted by: greensmile | June 13, 2007 4:46 PM
Arrrr...now THERE's a parrot that would make a pirate proud!
Posted by: BruceJ | June 13, 2007 4:56 PM
..or make a pirate into a meal, anyway.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 4:59 PM
No wonder they could never find snuffelupagus.
Posted by: MartinC | June 13, 2007 5:00 PM
Tastes like chicken!
Posted by: mojojojo | June 13, 2007 5:11 PM
greensmile,
There is no Key to the illustration, so maybe the white bones are the ones recovered and the grey are those missing? I don't know -- can someone clear this up?
Posted by: AEB | June 13, 2007 5:11 PM
Probably. Of course, since the deceased, nay, gone to the fjords oviraptorosaur is so large it could be heleven.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | June 13, 2007 5:14 PM
Here's the description of the holotype:
The white parts in the diagram are the bits they've got.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 13, 2007 5:15 PM
The white bones are the ones God loves... the darker ones are the ones God was angry with and made darker. And no- that isn't racist... it's Mormon. And being part of a religion exempts it from such criticisms.
There's your key.
I wish we could get some of this things' DNA. Oh, man to have gigantoraptor steak...
Posted by: Tatarize | June 13, 2007 5:20 PM
1) How did the avian lung evolve?
2) How did feathers evolve?
3) Which dinosaurs gave rise to which birds?
4) Which model is the right one: the cursorial one, or the arboreal one? Why one and not the other?
5) How could we falsify the dino-to-bird story?
Posted by: Mats | June 13, 2007 5:21 PM
Dammit! There goes my hopes of cloning and riding a giant chocobo.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 13, 2007 5:25 PM
Here are other questions you are not suposed to ask:
are you asking, mats?
'cause if so, then you would be a scientist, and could look at the data readily available to address your questions.
otherwise, questions posed in order to verify your ignorance don't do much, do they.
so, again, are you asking?
hey, I'm an ichthyologist, not a paleontologist, but i already know that it wouldn't be hard to find actual paleontologists who have published data attempting to answer those very questions.
so, if "darwinists" insist we not ask the questions, why then are they insistent on asking the same questions themselves, and publishing the results of their explorations in the literature?
must be some sort of back-handed consipiracy where, instead of trying to cover up issues, they are working double time to clarify things.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 5:30 PM
Thanks to all except "Mats" for the info. I needed a starting point on this.
I'm a four year mech eng and at 56 y/o I am doing some remedial paleontology/ biology because it is so available of the net these days !
I was still in grade school when I figured out my main reason for not believing in supernatural BS is all the contradictions, inconsistencies, and absurdities in "the inerrent word of god."
Mats, there are valid psychological reasons why certain people do not trust science. If you are interested you can read the basics here:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html
Posted by: E-lad | June 13, 2007 5:31 PM
Hey Mats, there are these neat buildings in most every town called libraries. In those libraries are all these stacks of paper covered with information and conveniently bound together, I believe they're called books. When you have questions about the collective body of information discovered and postulated by people, oftentimes these books have answers in them, or at least the educated opinions of people who have studied the same questions. There are even people who work there who can help you find what you're looking for!
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 13, 2007 5:35 PM
Well done, E-lad.
~ K-lass
Posted by: Kseniya | June 13, 2007 5:36 PM
Posted by: Baratos | June 13, 2007 5:43 PM
Baratos,
It is so fascinating at how we all (including the anti-mules)got here !
I am wondering if gigantus hopped like some birds, or had a leg-after-leg stride.
Posted by: E-lad | June 13, 2007 5:50 PM
Rey, Mats don't need no steenking libraries! He performs all his own research, and finds the Answers to be particularly comforting, in that they enable him to completely ignore information that might contaminate his hermetically-sealed beliefs.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 13, 2007 5:51 PM
well, doesn't that just prove how diabolical the conspiracy is?
uh-oh, I've said too much already...
Posted by: RavenT | June 13, 2007 5:55 PM
I bet that took you less than 5 minutes to put that together, Kseniya.
If mats would take 5 minutes to google his "questions" (even better, try google scholar), I'd bet he would find lots of research looking at the answers to his "questions".
like you say, though, he isn't interested in answers that differ from his preconception that scientists are nothing but materialists, intent on destroying his little fantasy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 5:57 PM
Lad, that's an interesting question. Have you ever seen a large, flightless bird that hopped like a sparrow? I haven't. I'd go with "stride" for this big fellah. There may be other clues (such as, in the structure of the hip, for example) but I'm not equipped to elaborate on that...
Ichthyic - yes, exactly. I'd love for Mats to prove us wrong, though. Wouldn't that be cool?
Posted by: Kseniya | June 13, 2007 6:07 PM
Bastard. I was drinking soda when I read that. :(
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 13, 2007 6:08 PM
K-girl,
I thought that maybe the humans that lived at the time could have outrun him if he hopped.
Posted by: E-lad | June 13, 2007 6:21 PM
Ichthyic - yes, exactly. I'd love for Mats to prove us wrong, though. Wouldn't that be cool?
mats could actually turn his driveby into an interesting discussion about the current status of a couple of those questions...
if he'd just ask.
heck there are a couple there I might like to spend some time bringing myself up to date.
like maybe extending his question on feather evolution to looking at the latest collection of fossils indicating the existence of feathers, and who is currently working on them.
I haven't looked at the issue in a few years now, and likely there are some great finds out there I'm unaware of.
seems especially applicable given that this latest find is a raptor.
If only he would ask the questions he is not supposed to ask...
why you such a hater, mats?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 6:27 PM
E-lad's comment echos my own observation, wasn't a precursor to the ratites the top carnivore during the Eocene? This completely f's up the extinction narrative of K-T boundary.
Mike
Posted by: mgr | June 13, 2007 6:29 PM
"5) How could we falsify the dino-to-bird story?"
Just find a 300 million year old bird. In the fundy universe, where all dating methods are flawed, that should be a simple task.
Posted by: ken | June 13, 2007 6:39 PM
funny, but Lou over on ATBC just now posted this link:
http://news.lycos.com/dynamic/stories/F/FEATHERED_DINOSAURS?SITE=LYCOS&SECTION=SCIENCE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-06-13-17-50-00
oh mats...
perhaps you might like to visit the display so you can not ask your questions there?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 6:40 PM
@33 Rey Fox
We don't have those in my town. Instead we're given a wanna be starbucks, with lots of magazines, empty shelves and computers. They call it a homework location, and keeps hours of 3 to 5.
Posted by: chris rattis | June 13, 2007 6:44 PM
Mike/mgr,
I'm so happy that my comment preceded and initiated your post !
Dale
Posted by: E-lad | June 13, 2007 6:46 PM
"This completely f's up the extinction narrative of K-T boundary."
I thought according to you creationists the K-T layer was put down by everyone on the Ark having the runs from bad soup on day 35, or something.
Wouldn't it be cool if the Gigantoraptor's direct genetic descendent turned out to be swallows?
Posted by: Bob L | June 13, 2007 6:52 PM
One could always hope that there is a group of kangaroo-parallel dinosaurs waiting to be discovered? But probably they wouldn't be quite as big as this one. The largest (extinct) hopping kangaroo was around 500 pounds.
Posted by: windy | June 13, 2007 6:57 PM
"it's estimated to have weighed about 1400kg (1½ tons for non-metric Americans)."
Sorry for my nitpicking, but aren't both tons and kg a part of the metric system, and isn't saying that "about 1½ tons" = 1400kg, the equivalent of the creationists saying that 1/3 = 30%?
Posted by: Tom Nielsen | June 13, 2007 7:01 PM
The jiggle factor alone, at that weight could cause trauma.
We see this in mature females.
Posted by: E-lad | June 13, 2007 7:01 PM
Y'know what they say, Ichthyic (and I think I just said it yesterday @ AtBC),
Timing is everything.
Happy to help.
Posted by: Lou FCD | June 13, 2007 7:02 PM
While in the shower a moment ago, I devised a theory; well, let's call it a hunch, that I could start a new religion based on the premise that the value of pi is actually three point zero, zero.
And the religion of the scientists has altered it slightly to show their superiority.
Posted by: E-lad | June 13, 2007 7:07 PM
Never mind, I just saw the article on Scientific American's homepage, where it appears that they are both just rough estimates.
Posted by: Tom Nielsen | June 13, 2007 7:12 PM
Dibs on the drumstick. For me and my neighbourhood.
So from the time Adam got smart until Noah, things like this were living on the same planet as humans? No wonder that they thought He was a vengeful God.
Ken Ham is getting rich off of stupid.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | June 13, 2007 7:13 PM
Hey, Matt!
You asked, I answer:
> 1) How did the avian lung evolve?
Incrementally. Saurischians other than birds (non-avian theropods, sauropods, basal sauropodomorphs) have the pleurocoels associated with the modern avian air sac system (an important element in the avian flow-through lung). More problematic evidence for air sacs lie in various pockets (but not true pleurocoels) in erythrosuchids and other dinosaurs.
However, the pelvic pump of the avian lung system is clearly present until Ornithothoraces (enantiornithines plus ornithuromorphs).
> 2) How did feathers evolve?
Incrementally. Basal coelurosaurs (Sinocalliopteryx, Sinosauropteryx (unlike what certain recent papers suggest!), Dilong, etc.) show rather simple fluffy structures. Maniraptorans such as Caudipteryx, Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus, Archaeopteryx, etc. show fully avian plumes.
For the evo-devo perspective on it, check scholars.google.com for references by Prum.
> 3) Which dinosaurs gave rise to which birds?
Birds are nested among the eumaniraptorans. Their closest relatives are deinonychosaurs (raptors).
See http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/10424arch.htm for eumaniraptoran relationships and http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/10423coel.htm for more basal coelurosaurs.
>4) Which model is the right one: the cursorial one, or the arboreal one? Why one and
> not the other?
Neither, and both! One of the most compelling recent discoveries in this field is the existence of Wing Assistend Incline Running, a behavior present in basal modern birds in which a front-and-back motion of the wings to generate traction against a vertical substrate, allowing them to literally run up a tree.
WAIR may have been present in basal maniraptorans on up. Basal eumaniraptorans (Epidendrosaurus, primitive deinonychosaurs, Archaeopteryx) show some limited arboreal traits. Above these forms you have more aerial locomotion traits.
So it seems as if the early phases were cursorial, and the later parts arboreal.
> 5) How could we falsify the dino-to-bird story?
At this point, roughly comparable to falsifying the carnivoran origin of seals or the primate origin of humans! However, in principle, you would need a comprehensive set of potential outgroups whose morphology and stratigraphic position is even more compelling than the dinosaurian origin of birds. In other words, unlike the media portrayal of Science, a single discovery doesn't do it: it is a case made by the gathering of a mass of consilient data.
Hope this helps,
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | June 13, 2007 7:16 PM
From the Miami museum exhibition article referenced by Ichthyic above,
This got me to wondering about creationists and undersized hearts that may not pump enough blood to the brain...
Has anyone looked into this?
Posted by: Lou FCD | June 13, 2007 7:19 PM
Polly want a cracker!
Right. Freakin'. Now!
Posted by: Larry | June 13, 2007 7:22 PM
Re 46,
Thanks for the info link! Guess where I'm taking my kid next weekend. You know living close to Miami ain't all bad after all.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | June 13, 2007 7:24 PM
BobL said:"I thought according to you creationists the K-T layer was put down by everyone on the Ark having the runs from bad soup on day 35, or something.
Wouldn't it be cool if the Gigantoraptor's direct genetic descendent turned out to be swallows?"
Comprehension problem?
What I was referring to is the scientific narrative that dinosaurs were on the way out at the K-T boundary, and note that the therapsid line potentially carried on into the Eocene, and I am a creationist?--ouch!
Don't assume that Walter Alvarez's account of the iridium line at the K/T boundary is the end all of the narrative, not with the outgassing issue associated with the Ghats still being considered as a factor, and that the only sharp extinction at that line is a large foraminifera.
Mats--as to the falsification question, what was the claudogram for T Rex at Hell's Creek all about? If the DNA was inconsistent with the avian sequences, this could have been such evidence, but it is not.
Mike
Posted by: mgr | June 13, 2007 7:28 PM
Polly want a cracker!
Right. Freakin'. Now!
LOL
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 7:37 PM
Re 46,
Thanks for the info link! Guess where I'm taking my kid next weekend. You know living close to Miami ain't all bad after all.
yeah, I'm on the other side of the country, but figure eventually it will make it to the LA Natural History Museum.
I hope.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 7:40 PM
oh, and thank Lou:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46708077c21b510a;act=ST;f=14;t=5066
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 7:41 PM
The illustration would be way more awesome if the human-shape-for-scale was reeling back in terror, B-movie poster style.
Posted by: AndreasB | June 13, 2007 7:43 PM
Its not just the birdie dinos in the news today, there's also Eocursor a basal ornithiscian that's just turned up. If anything it's arguably more important than Gigantoraptor as it tells us about the very early evolution of the other big dinosaur group.
The PDF is freely avaliable from the Royal Society's website
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | June 13, 2007 7:49 PM
And there should be a small fullness in the rear of his pants...
Posted by: Lou FCD | June 13, 2007 7:58 PM
The illustration would be way more awesome if the human-shape-for-scale was reeling back in terror, B-movie poster style.
here ya go:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/gigantoraptor2.jpg
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 8:08 PM
Tom, between the metric and the English systems, there are three different units called "ton" (yeah, I know, homonymy's a bitch, especially in knowledge representation...).
A long ton is 2,240 lb/1,016.0469088 kg; a short ton (the usual here in the US) is 2000 lb/907.18474 kg; and the metric ton (sometimes written "tonne" to distinguish it) is 2,204.6lb/1000 kg.
Posted by: RavenT | June 13, 2007 8:20 PM
...the therapsid line potentially carried on into the Eocene...
Potentially? We are here, aren't we? ;)
Posted by: windy | June 13, 2007 8:23 PM
Is it just me or is this obviously a transitional fossil between a brontosaurus and an ostrich?
Posted by: Narc | June 13, 2007 8:35 PM
PZ, "Late Cretaceous" is a proper name with a strict definition (http://www.stratigraphy.org/gssp.htm).
YES YES YES YES!!!!
That's not going to happen to the Gobi desert...
Dr. Holtz gave the fossil side, let me give the rest: Today's crocodiles have a couple of air sacs connected to the lung. Enlarge and multiply those air sacs and let them invade the skeleton, and that basically is it.
Birds are monophyletic, that is, the last common ancestor of all birds was itself a bird. Birds evolved only once. At least that's by far the most parsimonious interpretation of the evidence.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 13, 2007 8:37 PM
Argh. The second blockquote should of course end after its first paragraph.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 13, 2007 8:39 PM
That's not going to happen to the Gobi desert...
hey, I live in CA. It's already happened here to a great extent.
so i'll adjust and say MOST instead of ALL.
;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 8:40 PM
Second? It's the fifth blockquote. Must go to bed.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 13, 2007 8:41 PM
Thanks for the picture, PZ! I was jumping up and down when I saw this news story earlier today. I've gt a large interest in bird evolution, I even wrote a paper on it for my Evolution class. One of the most interesting things is how big this bloody thing is. The next biggest bird-like fossil is the "thunder bird" from Australia, which was at least half the size of this thing.
Posted by: Stevie | June 13, 2007 8:49 PM
Tom, between the metric and the English systems, there are three different units called "ton"
You forgot frieght ton, register ton and displacement ton. I'm sure there are more than I haven't heard of.
Here in metric-land the metric "ton" is always spelled "tonne" to make things non-confusing.
Posted by: Graculus | June 13, 2007 8:51 PM
Dear "Mats"
If you care to write me at acantho@mac.com I will go over avian evolution with you in some detail. Your questions show you are far FAR from educated in that particular field.
I will explain modern avian osteology and such, and compare this to the fossil record to reveal the obvious stepwise development of birds from non-volant theropod dinosaurs...
Posted by: Lago | June 13, 2007 9:36 PM
First let me thank Lou as requested by Ichthyic for the info link to the exhibit at the Miami museum of science.
I would also like to thank Mats for the questions to which he didn't want answers. The answers given in the above posts were very elucidating indeed, so a heartfelt thank you to all of the knowledgeable people who provided them. Thanks!
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | June 13, 2007 10:35 PM
By the way, the WAIR bit, seems a tad silly to me, as it always has, as the traits needed to produce the effect are not seen in basal birds, or theropods closely related to them.
Said another way, they are traits of an advanced neornithine pectoral girdle that brings about WAIR and are simply not seen in say, Archaeopteryx...
Posted by: Lago | June 13, 2007 10:40 PM
Neato.
My first thought when I read about this earlier today was to wonder whether we'd finally solved the mystery of where Deinocheirus's arms came from. Looking at the illustration, though, this guy seems to have (relatively) shorter forelimbs. (I know the arms are thought to be from an ornithomimosaur, but with an oviraptorosaur this size I thought it might be possible.) I guess there's still a giant ostrich dino waiting to be found somewhere out there...
Posted by: AdamK | June 13, 2007 10:44 PM
Thanks tons, Graculus :) -- I hadn't heard of any of those others before.
Posted by: RavenT | June 13, 2007 10:44 PM
Aye, thanks for the many explanations on the whole "ton"-issue. I think I got a little wiser. I could of course have done a little research before making my comment, but I weren't familiar with the many different kinds of "ton"s, so I assumed it was an error.... And who am I to question the infallibleness of PZ! I feel so very ashamed.
Posted by: Tom Nielsen | June 13, 2007 10:59 PM
It's wonderful when an anti-evolutionist shows up and (refuses to?) ask some good questions. I learn so much!
Posted by: Cyan | June 13, 2007 11:11 PM
"Comprehension problem?"
Yep, mixed you with Mats, Mike. My woops.
Posted by: Bob L | June 13, 2007 11:24 PM
I will explain modern avian osteology and such, and compare this to the fossil record to reveal the obvious stepwise development of birds from non-volant theropod dinosaurs...
well, I know mats didn't actually have any questions, since he was reading from a script, but I'll take you up on that, if you have time, as I've been curious about bone anatomy for a bit now:
When and with what fossils did the characteristics that make modern bird bones so light start appearing?
Was it before the raptors, after, or did it appear within that group? Did it start with hollowing, or something else?
thanks
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2007 11:47 PM
I think this is my mother.
Posted by: John Danley | June 13, 2007 11:57 PM
Heh, Cyan, I spent a good part of the afternoon reading up on reptile, amphibian, and mammal skin because a troll named Jeff on the "maelstrom" thread was all "I know all about dermatology and we *so* don't need evolution". Like you describe, the troll caused me to learn something new.
Now I'm going to take those articles I read and model that anatomical and physiological knowledge in an information system. That's my new incentive--every time a troll misuses an anatomical example, I'm going to model that troll's example correctly in my system. In that way, they're advancing the knowledge representation and dissemination of evolutionary transformation. I'm helping them, like Mats here, not be useless, in spite of their best efforts. :)
Posted by: RavenT | June 13, 2007 11:58 PM
@Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. (#57):
i've heard some thought that parrots are actually more closely related to this guy (oviraptors) than other maniraptors, what with the similarities in bizare head-shapes. but i'm not sure what to think about that.
@David Marjanović (#72):
well, i suppose i should direct the question to you as well, since you seem to something of an authority on the matter. i've heard some chattering about evo-devo and the evolution, secondary loss of, and re-evolution of flight, and that birds might indeed be polypheletic (with things like psittachiformes and ratites coming more directly from their similar-looking dinosaurian ancestors than from archaeopteryx), or that we should perhaps push the definition of "aves" further back on the cladogram. my paleontology prof indicated something about herrerasaur tracks that seem to indicate flight, but i haven't seen or heard of anything remotely like that.
any validity to any of this? is there any legitimate debate, or is this all fringe-thinking and cracked pottery?
Posted by: arachnophilia | June 14, 2007 12:20 AM
@Ichthyic (#86):
well, as thomas holtz indicated above, pleurocoels appear even in sauropods, so it would have been a condition present in basal saurischians. since pleurocoels are essentially what makes the skeleton hollow, i would say they started at least as early as the first saurischian. in other words, "very early in the dinosaurian line, if not before."
i don't think we have skeletons that are hollow to an avian extent until the maniraptors, such as archaeopteryx. but i could be mistaken about that. but the characteristics, like other avian characteristics, started appearing long before birds and long before flight.
Posted by: arachnophilia | June 14, 2007 12:32 AM
thanks.
yeah, I figured it had to be a while back, but was wondering just when and to what degree; thanks for the bit of clarification.
Not quite sure why I'm so curious about this specific thing; maybe it's the size/weight biomechanics issue.