Talk:Deinonychus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Should There Be a Picture Change

This concerns me. Should the picture of Deinonychus be changed to one without feathers since there is no evidence what so ever that this particular species had feathers like a few of the smaller dromeosaurs that did have some form of feathers or dino fur as some call it. Or should a picture of the animal in two different forms one without feathers and the other with feathers.Mcelite (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

No. All scientists now agree that it had feathers, especially since they were found on Velociraptor. And they didn't have dino fuzz, but true avian feathers (remiges and retrices) exactly as in modern birds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

However, no specimen with feathers has been found. For example That's like saying we've found a fossilized lion and since all cats are extinct and we keep finding lion fossils with a mane imprint then all species of cat must have had manes since they are of the same family. Am I right.Mcelite (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

No, it's really more like saying all fossil cats had fur. Nobody's asserting anything definite about specific display structures. A scaley Deinonychus is about as likely as a Smilodon with wrinkly naked elephant skin. Kotengu 小天狗 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ok but I still thinks it's a little assumptive. If they find fossilized scales on a deinonychus I'm sorry but it's gonna be funny to me, and it will probably hurt some people's feelings who believe fully that birds evolved from this specific dinosaur family and that there is no other possibility.Mcelite (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Why would one member of this family have scales when all skin impressions and evidence from bone that's ever been found from them and their ancestors shows that the others had feathers? Even Velociraptor, which was very closely related to Deinonychus? Even if birds didn't evolve from dromaeosaurs, the fact remains they had feathers. End of story. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True I respect that and it's true what you said. It's just a fact that in some families there is that one exception that may come up not specifically dromeosauridae family, but in the animal kingdom in general you do come across animals that are unique in their family. :) Mcelite (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

That's true to some extent, but can you give any examples of one family member being that unique? Body covering is a big deal trait. Any scaly members of the cat family, or the ostrich family? Any furry trout? ;) The fact is, any time there are even minor exceptions (like naked mole rats, which aren't scaly, they just don't have hair anymore) there's always an ecological reason for it. There's no evidence the behavior or ecology of Deinonychus was any different from Velociraptor, that would lead anyone to believe it would have needd to lose its feathers or re-evolve scales (something never seen in any animal family ever. Hair or feathers can be lost, but scales have never taken their place). Is it possible Deinonychus lost its feathers? Yeah, as you point out, there can be exceptions, though for the reasons above I gauruntee it wasn't scaly. Is there any logical reason to think that it actually did? Nope. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that. It would be something else to actually find that in the fossil record. Your right behavior or ecology does make a difference in the animal's anatomy.Mcelite (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Perhaps the case of Juravenator would be useful for your discussion. This taxon is usually placed in the compsognathidae, along with the protofeathered Sinosauropteryx, yet Juravenator has no preserved feathers. In fact, it has well - preserved skin on the posterior portion of the body, and this skin has tubercles but no follicles. In Nature, (Vol440 16 March 2006. pp.287-288) Xu suggests that this may imply a complex pattern of feather evolution and/or secondary loss of feathers in dinosaurs. He also suggests that Juravenator may not really belong in the compsognathidae, but he does not strongly support this possibility. Thus, the best evidence suggests that, at least in some non-avian theropods, two members of the same family may have and not have feathers. Though one can strongly infer that Deinonychus had feathers, and there is less (no) evidence supporting a scaly reconstruction, it is still possible. I would not agree with anyone who claimed that they could "guarantee" what the skin of an extinct animal with unknown skin was like. I would feel that this is the sort of methodological overconfidence that leads researchers to make big mistakes and to ignore new evidence. I feel that, to be a good reader of science, one must remain open to the evidence, and I feel that there is little value in declaring an "end of story".Jbrougham (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's not really comparable to compare a derived family like the dromaeosaurids, heavily nested within forms that show fully modern patterns of feathers, and a "family" of very basal coelurosaurs that only seem to form a monophyletic clade about 50% of the time. I agree that it's possible one or two dromaeosaurs had scales--just as possible as some unknown extinct species of kiwi or ostrich having scales. That is, not likely, and the opposite assumption should hold until some kind of evidence lets us suspect otherwise. In this vein I'd say it's a 50-50 shot whether something like Compsognathus had feathers. Juravenator has given us room to speculate. Nothing comparable has happened in maniraptorans. "End of story" refers more to the use in this article. It would be irresponsible to suggest anything else, especially since no other researchers have chosen to do so with regards to this taxon. My personal experience is that the singling out of things like Deinonychus for these "possible exceptions to the rule" have far more to do with nostalgia for outdated pop culture depictions than any kind of science. Maybe what I should have said was "End of story (for now)." Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While you are 100% right that we'll never know for sure without a time machine or Deinoncyhus skin impressions, you can say that about almost anything in science. Juravenator, if it was even a coelurosaur, was a very basal one. "Protofeathers" had just started to appear and indeed Compsognathus itself bears no feathers. However, Deinoncyhus was not basal but a derived member of an extremely bird-like family, all of whose members for which integument is preserved have feathers, including basal members. In addition, members of groups "leading up" to dromaeosaurids all have feathers as well. In fact, the only coelurosaurs we know did without feathers are European Jurassic compsognathids... the basalmost group in many analyses. I would assume Deinonychus had feathers the same way I would assume a fossil moa had feathers... because living members of its clade do, and because its ancestors did. Feathers are no different than any other anatomical feature really... while Alioramus premaxillary teeth are unknown, I'd bet any amount of money that they were D-shaped in cross-section. While holding out the possibility that anything scientists assume might turn out to be false, some assumptions are better supported than others, and this is one of them.

Also, a picture can't have scales AND feathers. It has to be either one. So we have to choose, and if we are responsible, we make the choice that would have something approaching unanimous support from the experts in the field. Sheep81 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick time! "Compsognathus itself bears no feathers. " The two specimens of Compsognathus bear no skin at all. While I may have been hasty in guaranteeing Deinonychus didn't have scales, I'll go out on a limb and bet Compsognathus had soft tissue, despite the total lack of direct fossil evidence for it ;)

Also, don't forget the presence of scales on T. rex. We've either got a situation where two distinct lineage reverted to scales during the very early evolution of proto-feathers (possible), we have feathered animals with scaly tails (improbable for parsimony and development reasons), or we've got cladograms that are a bit out of sequence around the extremely poorly known and under-represented basal coelurosaurs (I'd put money on this one myself, especially with the widely-fluctuating positions of Jura and compsognathids as a whole). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you have Pelecanimimus, another animal right near the origin of the maniraptora (probably) with preserved smooth (tubercle-less) skin on the head. I think we are all pretty much in agreement about the overwhelming likelihood that Deinonychus had feathers and the lack of any need and questionable motive for doing recons of one with scales. I dig that Juravenator's affiliation is not certain. I just try to keep in mind alternate possibilities - including mosaic evolution, mass homeothermy, secondary loss, and even the possibility of imperfect or incomplete homeothermy, as all possible reasons why distinct lineages of dinosaurs could lose feathers when no birds ever did. And my real point is just this; Dinoguy2 has taught me to be judicious when writing on wikipedia, and to cite studies rather than editorialize on my own opinions. It was hard to get used to, but I now that it is crucial to putting good content on these pages. I think there's a lot more value in documenting what evidence has been published for or against something, and giving refs on it, than saying what reasoning we used to make up our minds, or how sure we are we're right.Jbrougham (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. It can hard at times not to express your own opinion on an important subject. I always try to keep in mind that the animal kingdom is extremely diverse,and some follow patterns and others go completely against the laws of nature. For example if you ask a phycist can a dolphin swim based on its anatomy they would say it's impossible, yet we all know that all species dolphins are excellent swins, and very acrobatic. The best thing to do is to just go by the evidence we have for now, for the longest scientist thought T.Rex's arms were weak, but now we know they were actually quite strong. I personally have the issue of saying Giganotosaurus is larger than T.Rex based on fossil evidence when they both have basically the same hip height, with Giga just being slightly longer and some scientist say T. Rex is more heavily built. I guess you could say it's one of God's ways to challenge are minds. :) Mcelite (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

"Then you have Pelecanimimus, another animal right near the origin of the maniraptora (probably) with preserved smooth (tubercle-less) skin on the head."

Now here, I think, is an excellent candidate for secondary loss of (something). Probably feathers--any known examples of a scaled animal losing its scales in favor of naked skin? Remember that scales != naked skin... they're a distinct form of integument just like hair and feathers are. It's not enough to invoke sya, mass homeothermy in the scales of T. rex. You need a valid evolutionary and developmental reason why an animal would lose one type of integument (feathers) and re-evolve a more primitive one (scales, rather than naked skin). It would be like finding that Dimetradon had fish scales, or a rhinoceros re-evolving reptile scales for protection (assuming the synapsid line ever had reptilian scales, no evidence for that as far as I know). I guess it's possible that early coelurosaurs retained scaly skin under their feathers, but I don't know of any evidence for this and I'm not sure there could be a developmental explanation for such a thing. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The other issue here is that the use of images on Wikipedia basically are OR. Unless they're copied from a paper, illustrations contain original interpretation by the artist. We do have the whole peer review thing for that reason, but maybe we should take this farther and include cites for our images? Would such a thing be possible? I doubt you'd find a cite for a scaly Deinonychus, but most papers don't bother to speculate about life appearance at all... Maybe Tracy Ford's articles? Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, will this shite never end?? - anyhoo, it would be nice to have a citeable resource on dinosaur (or palaeo-critter) appearance. I smell a website. -- John.Conway (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that it would be weird if we were to find fish scales. However, ever animal has it's own pattern and sometimes they do go different pathes because it is more suitable for them then their relatives. Also the fact that not everything goes on a pattern like we wish they did somethings in the animal kingdome are complicated and we may never find out the full story. As one person said to me it's foolish to belief everything is in plain english God like diversity and change so it can be hard at times to see what has changed and what hasn't. God forbid if an animal in the permain time line be found with fur. Way before any bird fossil that we've found so far. lol Gathering images is a pain especially when you have people on wikipedia that like to have images deleted for fun or they're very by the book people.Mcelite (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Well, of course, a maniraptoran would not be "re-evolving" scales. It is most likely that all maniraptorans retained scales on their feet, since all living birds do. The genes for scales were thus contained intact in every skin cell in every maniraptoran ever, and they would only need to be reactivated in those locations. Anyway, once more, I'm not arguing Deinonychus had scales, nor that it should be illustrated that way. I'm saying it is not impossible. I feel like there is not much value to trying to figure out armchair reasons that something can't evolve, especially based on negative evidence. One could even imagine that, since the velociraptorinae include the largest known dromaeosaurs, Deinonychus could even have descended from an ancestor that used mass homeothermy and lost feathers as adults. Then, if they ever do turn up a fossil of a complete and scaly dromaeosaur skin, I won't have to gasp in amazement. Again, that is the opposite of what i would predict, but Biology does not conform to prediction very well.Jbrougham (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Such a find would cause me to gasp in amazement from development standpoint--I don't pretend to even be close to well versed in developmental biology, but my understanding is that certain swathes of body integument are controlled by the same group of genes in reptiles and birds. The way I had it explained to me: "There's a good reason to assume that Juravenator didn't have feathers. It's the same reason why birds always show feather development in the same spot every time. See:

Alibardi, L. Thompson, M. 2001. Fine structure of the developing epidermis in the embryo of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis, Crocodilia, Reptilia). J.Anat. 198 : 265-282

Scale formation occurs in two main waves (probably three). The first wave is the formation of scales over the entire axial body (sans head), and proximal limbs. The second wave incorporates the distal limbs, and the head. Thus the second wave responds to a different stimulus than the first (main) wave of scale formation. It is this secondary cascade that was probably effected somewhere along feathered dinosaur evolution; turning off feather formation in favour of scales in this region." I guess then there must have been some mutation to allow scale formation on the hind limbs and blocking it on the front limbs? This appears to be the case in all maniraptorans at least. Developmental biology is something almost completely ignored in discussions of feather evolution. I think Prum and Brush are the only ones who have done anything with it in regards to non-avian dinosaurs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So you think that maniraptorans evolved from scaled theropod ancestors, then they evolved feathers which covered their entire bodies, then they all lost feathered feet and re-evolved scaled feet due to "some mutation"? Isn't it more parsimonious to assume that they RETAINED scale forming genes on their metatarsals and toes from a scaled common ancestor? Moreover, I believe there are fossils which show scales on the fingers of some maniraptorans as well as their feet. Microraptor gui comes to mind. I could check for you if you like?Jbrougham (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No no--said that wrong. I think, based on the way I had embryonic scale development explained to me, there must have been some mutation to the process that allowed scales to be retained on the hind feet while feathers developed on the hands. By "formation" I meant in the embryo, not evolutionarily. Unless of course retrical feather development is controlled by a different stimulus completely. I'm also not sure when this would have occurred, phylogenetically. Obviously Caudipteryx had feathers on its hands, not sure what it had on its feet. Microraptor had feathers on both hands and feet, obviously--do you have a cite for the scales? The presence of feathers and scales on the same area of the body would probably throw a wrench into this whole argument ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Update for anybody interested: "In the case of the hind limbs, there appears to be an active block to this cascade, which doesn't occur in the rest of the body. This block seems to involve the delta (cell-cell) pathway, and the BMP pathway. By deactivating the former, and stimulating the latter, feathers get suppressed, and scales develop. When this is (experimentally) reversed, scales turn into feathers (e.g. the infamous: Zhou and Niswander experiments). ... The key thing to remember in all of this is that it is feather development that is being suppressed. Without active suppression, the "natural" result is for feathers to occur all over the epidermis. On a side note, it would be neat to see a study done on feather development in snow owls, to see if they achieved their feathery feet by a deletion event, or by suppressing their suppressors."

I suspect the snow owl situation would parallel Microraptor--I can't find any evidence it had scales on its feet, and from a developmental standpoint we should assume the entire foot was feathered. Same with hands of other maniraptorans that have primary feathers. I know at least Sinornithosaurus preserved scales on the feet, so we can assume the genetic block that allowed scales to develop on the feet is at least basal to the deinonychosauria/aves split. Again, the presence of scales and feathers on a dinosaur forelimb would seem to blow this whole "developmental biology" thing apart. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was actually "Dave" (NGMC-91), the Sinornithosaurus, that I was thinking of. The tuberculate scales on the feet are visible in Fig. 4 of the paper "The distribution of integumentary structures in a feathered dinosaur" Nature vol 410 26 April 2001 pp. 1084 - 1088. Pedopenna, named for the feathers on the feet, also has them "Near phalanx III-3, some tuberculate impressions are also preserved". "A new maniraptoran dinosaur from China with long feathers on the metatarsus" Naturwissenschaften (2005) 92:173-177. Epidendrosaurus (scansoriopteryx) also preserves tubercles on its tail. I don't know who you are quoting above about snow owl feet, but I fear that your thinking is too all - or nothing about scale and feather development. You seem to believe that either enormous tracts of the body must be feathered or scaled with no intermixture or variegation. I think that supression or expression can happen in a very complex, cell by cell, pattern. As evidence I am looking at photos of an elf owl, Micrathene whitneyi, in "Owls", Floyd Scholz, 2001. On page 150 I can cllearly see the left metatarsus and toes, and they are clearly covered by tuberculate scales with wispy feathers sticking out in between them. The feathers grow denser and fuller as we proceed proximally until the tibial portion of the leg is entirely feathered. There may be rules of thumb in developmental biology, but most rules have exceptions and I wouldn't use them to preclude the possibility of a different pattern evolving. A teacher of mine once told me that every vertebrate spinal cord forms the same way in early emryonic development - as a hollow tube, with one exception; tuna, where it forms as a solid cylinder. That is the kind of thing one could never pedict from theory. I think it is more valuable to observe nature carefully than to make predictions about what nature should or should not contain.Jbrougham (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

" Pedopenna, named for the feathers on the feet, also has them "Near phalanx III-3, some tuberculate impressions are also preserved"" Well as I said, that does it for the all-or-nothing development argument ;) Incidentally, do you have a specific ref for the claim that Epidendrosaurus had scales on its tail? I can't find this in my copy of the Epi or Scansor paper, though I've read it in several online sources (like Mortimer's comments on the DML). Though I think my Scansor paper might be abridged. I've asked about this in a few places and never gotten a response. This almost seems to be a meme that came out of thin air, unless I missed it someplace. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's no air-meme. It's in Czerkas' 'Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight'. You have that book, don't you? I don't have it here with me to give you a page number, but go to the figure that shows a close - up of the tail, and the illustration. it is also written in the text about the tail, I believe.Jbrougham (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the problem--I only have pdf versions of a few chapters, which I suspect are abridged or not complete. As long as I know it's definitely in that book, I'm happy. Thanks! Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have it here now. The scales are labelled in Figures 1, 2, and 13, on pages 68, 69, and 76, respectively. You were right, though. There are far fewer instances of preserved scales in maniraptors than I thought.Jbrougham (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am slightly against the picture myself, but not for any of the reasons pointed out. I very much accept that they had feathers, I merely feel that the shape of the head seems a little off given the way the skull would have likely been fleshed out, however, overall it is not bad, though, from a distance, it DOES have a little puffin-esque-ness because of the markings that were chosen, but that is irrelevant, anyway, my only real problem with it is head shape, but, I could very well be wrong about whether or not it seems proper, and, if I am, please to not be too rough to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.84.80.104 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you run into an interpretation problem. There are no complete Deinonychus skulls, and the skulls we have are badly crushed and distorted. The very latest interpretations by Greg Paul give it a narrower, more Velociraptor-like skull, but that's not necisarily the only valid interpretation. It could have been a bit more triangular, and feathers on the posterior portion only would have enhanced this shape in life. Logically, if one part of the head had more or longer feathers, that part's gonna look bigger. I'm not sure what you mean by 'fleshed out'--dinosaur skulls, and birds and other reptiles for that matter, have very little meat on them (none really, aside from the jaw muscles, just skin and connective tissue) so the overall shape of the head doesn't vary much from the shape of the skull as it does in mammals, which have skulls deeply embedded in facial muscles and other soft tissue. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Scale

I've not been up to date on the seeming size revision displayed here, but the majority of my (admittedly 10+ year old) texts use a scale reference close to the ones displayed here[1] and [2] than the one in this article. Of course we're running the Natural History Museum of London and Encyclopedia Britannica websites that may also not be up to date. I think perhaps the image that has been used as a silhouette is possibly lending a somewhat confusing/misleading scale reference? I stand to be corrected. Cheers.Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The second looks reasonably close (sans feathers), but for some reason the Natural History Museum seems to inflate its dinosaurs (check Thescelosaurus, which is monstrously large for some reason); the problem is that dinosaurs are inconvenient for scaling because shoulder height is useless for many, hip height is variable because their legs were permanently flexed outside of the sauropods and stegosaurs, and body length is subject to the curves of the tail and neck and the unknown size of the intervertebral discs. Be that as it may, Gregory S. Paul has estimated the hip height (neutrally flexed leg) of two specimens of Deinonychus as 0.76 meters and 0.87 meters, with respective body lengths of 3.04 m and 3.43 m. The individual in the scale box looks to be within those figures, although it does have an action pose that shortens it at the hips and raises the tail. The feathers are disguising the size somewhat; this could be worked around by comparing a skeleton of Deinonychus to a skeleton of a human, I suppose. It would certainly look bigger if it was just standing there, instead of going for the legs of the blissfully oblivious human. J. Spencer (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The first one is certainly incorrect--it looks like they scaled that outline to about 3 meters without taking into account the upright pose, not to mention the fact that the proportions are way off (tail is far too short compared to the body, etc.). I'm not exactly happy with the scale we have now, I'd prefer one in a more neutral pose. I used that because it was based on my own drawing. As this is an FA I'd prefer to re-do it with a completely free base image in lateral view, but I don't think we have any. Maybe I'll scale down Steve's or Arthur's Utahraptor for now and get a better version up. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one of those two gentlemen or one of our other awesome artists can make something we can use? Sheep81 (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good good good. An image similar to these[3], [4] would be a better size comparison. The Utahraptor image mentioned is also a potential candidate if resized as it would lend a more static pose for actual size comparison. As for the Natural History Museum yes it's inflated, but still closer to what I've understood (regarding posture rather than scale). Cheers all. --Koncorde (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The posture is based on the image shown there, which is a fairly outdated concept of Deinonychus that still persists in some places, despite the fact it's from the 1960s and about as current as most dino illustrations from that era. A more modern interpretation of Deinonychus is GSP's skeletal from Dinosaurs of the Air, which can be found here: [5] Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much the image used in the text book, except a little more robust and with a sub 'concept' of the dinosaur with feathers.--80.194.170.170 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Scale is much better now. Certainly gives it a more menacing size compared to the 'in action' pose previously. Cheers Dinoguy2. --Koncorde (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency re foot claw and short metarsus

The article quotes recent research that actually suggests the foot clwa was not a slicing weapon (one article's title includes "crampon") but the analysis of D.'s short metarsus is based on Ostrom, who thought of the claw as a slicing weapon. This looks inconsistent. Philcha (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This could probably be clarified--my reading of Ostrom is that he correlated the function of the specialized claw with the shortening of the metatarsus. It doesn't really matter what the function of the claw was--Ostrom thought slicing, but even if that changes, the correlation would still be valid. I don't think the 'crampon' theory has even been published though, has it? I thought it was just from that TV show. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Manning, P. L., Payne, D., Pennicott, J., Barrett, P. and Ennos, R. A. (2006) Dinosaur killer claws or climbing crampons? Royal Society, Biology Letters, 2 (1), 110-112. doi=10.1098/rsbl.2005.0395

Now don't say I never gave you anything. :) J. Spencer (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox image

The image in the taxobox shows the arm covered in feathers which increase in length towards the hand. This is not credible, since all analyses claim that the hand was used for grappling, so long feathers would have been a hindrance and would have got broken. Do we have a better image? Philcha (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And the other image is even less credible (D. looking like a baby parrot waiting to be fed). Philcha (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing incredible about the 'parrot' picture. It’s a modern view of what it ‘may’ have looked like. As far as I can see it breaks no rules. As for feather length and grasping....I'm not shure that all analysis say that, apparently this paper (which I haven’t read) suggests that they had benefits in locomotion. 'Hartman, Scott. 2000. Primary and caudal feathers as locomotory adaptations in maniraptoran theropods. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 20, Supplement to No. 3. pp. 47A. Having not read it, I don't know whether it says anything about grasping or feather length. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the cite offhand, but there is one recent paper that demonstrates (for Deinonychus specifically even) that primary feathers would not get in the way for prey capture, mainly because the hand faced perpendicular to the feathers. All known dromaeosaurs have remiges on the arms, including Velociraptor, which we have direct evidence for grappling predatory behavior in the form of the fighting dinosaurs. So obviously, feathers didn't get in the way that much. The "parrot" thing has been done to death, see the archives. Why people can't get past this animal looking natural and (gasp!) unthreatening is beyond me. It's not a freaking bloodthirsty monster that kept it's talons fully extended at all times. Yes, sometimes, Deinonychus actually sat down! Shocking, right? Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually... right now I'm reading Senter (2006), linked to in the references. The image in the taxobox is incorrect in that both wrists appear to be fully extended at the same time. Senter demonstrates that the wrists of Deinonychus automatically supinate when extended, and taking into consideration the likely presence of feathered wings, only one wing could be extended in this way at a time, as the supination causes the remiges to cross the front of the body (see figure 7). I'll see if AW can try to modify the image at some point to address this. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It links to BioOne which my university and I arn't members of. So alas! I can't see it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize it was subscription only access. I can send you the paper if you need it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the paper Dinoguy2 referred to is "The function of the manus and forelimb of Deinonychus antirrhopus and its importance for the origin of avian flight." Alan D. Gishlick. in "New perspectives on the origin and early evolution of birds", 2001, Yale. pp.301-318. Figure 10, on page 314, shows how the feathers would be held clear of prey being gripped. It's a great paper for visualizing dromaeosaur arm function.Jbrougham (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do we know if the primary feathers would really be so long? Take a look at this image for example, where they're shorter, and the fingers look like they are capable of gripping:[6] Still pretty damn bird-like, if not more. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't know exactly how long they'd be in these species, it's up to informed artistic license. The ones in the taxobox image just about match the length drawn for Deinonychus in the Senter paper though, so this speculation at least has a published backup. I like Rey's vulture-like interpretation too, though the naked limbs look a little bulky to me. The skeleton is pretty gracile. The quill knobs on Velociraptor also suggest the secondaries, at least, would be larger than he shows, though they could be vestigial or something and of course this is a different genus. One impression I get from these papers is that the fingers are not capable of single-handed gripping to a significant extent, by the way, or at least of manipulating in any way, but the hands could sort of 'bluntly' hold things between them or against the body. Bambiraptor is the only dromie that, when the hands 'gripped', the outer fingers sort of formed a pincer that could potentially be used to hold/manipulate things. This is discussed in Senter. And yeah, the Gishlick paper is what I was thinking of. It was a chapter in a book, however, so it doesn't look likely to be available online. Though he has a new paper out covering what looks like some of the same material I'm asking around for copies of... (Gishlick 2007). Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG You guys..why does Deinonychus look like a pigeon??

HI! I understand the possibilty that Deinonychus had feathers, but omg isn't that picture over doing it? I understand that a velociraptor skeleton was found with some feathers but was the whole body in feathers or just a partial. Also I did some digging and their is no fossil evidence what so ever that Deinonychus in particular had feathers like some of it's relatives did. Also what if one gets found with scale impressions then you have to change the picture. lol But seriously isn't that too much feathers? They couldn't fly and from what the fossil records show Archteopteryx was the first bird so doesn't that kinda kill the thought that birds didn't evolve from Dromeosaurids?? That's All Thank YOu Please Reply98.206.116.222 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Le sigh.

isn't that picture over doing it?

No.

but was the whole body in feathers or just a partial

The whole body.

their is no fossil evidence what so ever that Deinonychus in particular had feathers like some of it's relatives did

There's no fossil evidence Smilodon had fur like it's relatives, the other cats. But you can bet your life it did anyway.

But seriously isn't that too much feathers

No, probably not.

fossil records show Archteopteryx was the first bird

Only under certain definitions. It's also possible dromaeosaurs evolved from Archaeopteryx. Most scientists don't care how much feathering an animal had when they're defining what a bird is. If they did, even T. rex might be a bird.

what if one gets found with scale impressions then you have to change the picture

Yes indeed, but don't hold your breath. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Slightly related, isn't the skull of the pictured skeleton in the article wrong? It seems to be identical to the one I based the drawing on. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to mostly agree with Dinoguy2. Dromaeosaurs may have evolved from Archaeopteryx, but we don't know for sure. Just as we are not 100% sure that Deinonychus had feathers or not. I honestly think the feathers may be overdoing it a little on the arms and legs, but since there is no fossil evidence it is hard to say.Mcelite (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Since htere's no fossil evidence, the best bet is to base restorations on close relatives that we have fossil evidence for. We know that Velociraptor had well-developed secondary flight feathers on the arm. We know that several smaller dromaeosaurids did as well. We know of no dromaeosaurids that lacked this feature. We know dromaeosaurids had feathers comperable to or more advanced than Archaeopteryx, and we know they covered the body in a way similar to modern birds. Any restorations that do not take this evidence into account becuase there's no evidence for this particular species are engaging in speculative fiction, not science. I would disagree just as much with somebody putting any kind of feathers on a baby Giganotosaurus. There's no evidence either way but there's plenty of reasons why, logically, it probably was not the case. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's one of those were the commonly accepted view a la Jurassic Park is now being challenged and the response is somewhat stubborn. Personally I'm not one for the bright colours and such that effectively turn dinosaurs into 3 million year old parakeets, but we're none of the wiser on colouration and likely never will know. So, as Dinoguy says, we go with the current mode of thinking.--Koncorde (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you need more pictures

I think the title of this says all.Egpytianwhiteboy (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Of what? FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Batman, of course.

Circular Reasoning

"Deinonychus almost certainly was feathered, since its close relative Velociraptor was shown in 2007 to have been feathered, based on the presence of quill knobs on the forearm. Such knobs show where feathers anchor in modern birds. This recent discovery added weight to already strong theories that all dromaeosaurids were feathered." -- That's circular reasoning. How do we know it has feathers? We don't. It says, "Deinonychus ALMOST CERTAINLY was feathered," (how do we know that?) "since its close relative Velociraptor was shown in 2007 to have been feathered," (we found feathers preserved on the aniaml?) "based on the presence of quill knobs on the forearm." (That doesn't mean there were feathers.) "Such knobs show where feathers anchor in modern birds." (What about quills?)

That statement has no absolute, verified science of truth and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Guesswork and suppositions aren't allowed to be stated as facts. Colonel Marksman (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The quill is the part of the feather that anchors in the skin. Did you think it meant porcupine quill or something? I didn't think that needed to be clarified but maybe it does. Quill knob are only found in birds. "Quill" refers to part of a modern feather, nothing else in this context. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.....

I suggest that we make a FAQ page, like they did over at Evolution, to cover these questions so we never have to go into this ever again. It could answer 'How do you know 'Know' that (Insert Kool dinozaur Here) had feathers?' and cover 'We are just reporting maistream science...' etc. Anyone up for it, it might be a good investment? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. If C.M. came to your house with a complete fossil of Deinonychus with full body skin impressions showing scales, it couldn't be included here. He can use all the logic he wants, but until he can find a citation for a paper disputing the ones saying they lacked feathers, he's out of luck. And that won't happen--the birds-aren't-dinosaurs crowd classifies Deinonychus as a bird. It would be absurd for even them to put this argument forward in print. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed feather POV

I removed the feather POV. It is original research and does not belong. The article related the "feathers" of the veliciraptor fails on two parts: 30 million year genetic difference and veliciraptors were only proven to have "pre"feathers, which means that the feathers weren't yet developed. That would take 20 million more years. Secondly, the next use deals with an article dealing with "if", to prove that much of the speculation that emphasized the feathers was absurd. The feather POV is a minority POV and not scientifically based. Please do not reinsert it into the article. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being hasty. All dromaeosaurids for which soft-tissue impressions are known had feathers (Cryptovolans, Microraptor with four wings, Sinornithosaurus), with quill knobs on a further two taxa (Rahonavis and Velociraptor). I don't know where you got the part about Velociraptor having pre-feathers, because quill-knobs are for feathers that need support. I don't know what 30 million years has to do with anything, since Microraptor and allies (with four wings) predated Deinonychus by at least several million years. I don't know what 20 million more years has to do with anything: dromaeosaurids didn't get 20 million more years after Velociraptor, and flight feathers were a Jurassic innovation. If anything, claiming Deinonychus did not have feathers is a fringe position at this point. J. Spencer (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre feathers is an easy way to describing feathers without functionality. There are a few types and are an evolutionary marker. I would also be easy on the "all" comment, as that is unproven and definitely not the case, especially with scientists having to use "if" whenever even mentioning feathers and deinonychus in the same breathe unless they want to be ignored as merely speculative. "I don't know what 30 million years has to do with anything" One of the sources was describing velociraptors, a species that did not exist until 30 million years after the last Deinonychus. And "allies"? Finally, your understanding of genetics seems to be lacking, which probably explains the "all" comment and the generalization. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not hopes, dreams, maybes, or "because I think it should be so"s. There is no reliable source claiming Deinonychus definitely had feathers and there is little reason to believe they did. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Quill knobs are for secondaries, which are not pre-feathers. Please read the Turner et al. article.

It is objectively true that all dromaeosaurids for which soft-tissue has been described had feather impressions.

Regarding 30 million years: if I put in Microraptor, suddenly Deinonychus postdates it several million years, depending on dating. Arguing based on Velociraptor is a red herring. It was probably in the article because it is phylogenetically closer to Deinonychus than Microraptor.

"Allies" was just a quick way of saying "microraptorines".

Please find a reliable source from the last few years that claims "there is little reason to believe they [Deinonychus] did [have feathers]." J. Spencer (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

1. None of the articles prove that there are feathers. 2. None of the sources say anything but "if". 3. Your attempt to try and claim that they did via connecting them to dinosaurs found thousands of miles apart and were millions of years apart shows really bad logic. "It is objectively true that all dromaeosaurids " False because you did not say "Deinonychus". You are attempting to relate difference species with each other. They are different for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - if you can find a few articles that directly say (not speculate, but state from evidence) that Deinonychus had feathers, please provide them and then we can come up with an appropriate way to add the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair 'nough. If I'm at the library, I'll try Holtz's recent encyclopedia. J. Spencer (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Make sure to quote the pertinent parts. That way, people without access can find it. If there isn't a big snow storm Tuesday/Wednesday, I might be able to sneak down to the Library of Congress to dig up any recent info. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does a source have to explicitly mention Deinonychus having feathers? There are hundreds of sources with statements long the lines, "dromaeosaurs are now known to have been feathered." Deinonychus is a dromaeosaur. I don't think it's out of line to have a sourced statement like "Deinonychus, as a dromaeosaur, was covered in feathers." Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply reading Darwin's Origin of Species would make it obvious that the reason why there are different species is because of different genetic traits. Dromaeosaurs aren't clasified together because of feathers. This was a later discovery -in China-. An American Dinosaur, which was found on the other side of the great continent and was separated by millions of years from many of the others does not have the same genetics. Furthermore, WP:OR makes it impossible to claim anything without specific critical support. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't make general claims at all? Seems like a harsh interpretation. Should we thereofre remove the images of a furry Smilodon? After all, there's no evidence Smilodon had fur, except the fact that modern big cats do, and they live much later and on a different continent. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mammals don't lay eggs. Thus, platypus is not a mammal according to the generalization. There are always exceptions, and it is bad science to not be precise. And not all cats have fu, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, you've just revealed that there are big gaps in your knowledge of evolution. Darwin published Origin of species in 1959, and his first published work on what we now call genetics was The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (1868) - advocating the now-discarded theory of pangenesis]. Mendel's work, which is the foundation of modern genetics, was published in an obscure journal in 1865, and ignored until about 1900. In other words, Origin of Speciesdoes not "make it obvious that the reason why there are different species is because of different genetic traits".

Your statement "Mammals don't lay eggs" is just plain false. There plenty of fossil mammals that are thought to have been egg-layers, as that is the ancestral amniote→synapsid→therapsid method of reproduction, and most of them date from earlier than the earliest known marsupials and placentals (or, to be more precise, metatherians and eutherians).

If you wish to find out what the WP:RS say about Deinonychus and feathers, I suggest you try Google Scholar. --Philcha (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to talk down to me or lecture me, or at least do it without making blatant errors like "1959". Furthermore, - "Your statement "Mammals don't lay eggs" is just plain false." was your attempt to attack me over your misreading of what I stated. It was, in fact, an example of a -generalized statement that isn't true for everything-. Please reread the above and that would be basically clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We're making this too complicated. Wiki-wise, there wasn't a reference in the earlier version of the article that stated either Deinonychus had or probably had feathers, or that dromaeosaurids as a group had or probably had feathers (Deinonychus included). The way it was expressed before was a synthesis, but it shouldn't be too hard to find a source that explicitely states one of those two things. If there isn't one now, I wouldn't be surprised if there is one within months because that's the way the wind is blowing. J. Spencer (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This Czerkas paper kinda sais it, The reluctance to accept the concept of feathers on dromaeosaurs stems from the well established belief of dinosaurs as being all scaly reptilian giants......since the discovery of Deinonychus, the initial life restoration of this dromaeosaur established the conceptual imagery of these dromaeosaurs as being scaly and looking more reptilian, or dinosaurian, than avian [7] Steveoc 86 (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That proves that the majority opinion is that they are not feathered and not that they actually are feathered. Fringe would require us to have an established majority opinion and that article would be pointing that there is no such thing towards feathered. Sorry. We need recent studies that prove that there are feathers. We need direct citations of the proof. Then we need to add the proof into the article (because the article needs to be expanded on the point). I am surprised that this got through FA in 08 without this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That may have been the majority opinion leading up to 2002 (the date of the article), but the field is rapidly changing (given that we've only had feathered nonavian dinosaurs "at all" since 1996). I've got, from Dougal Dixon's The Complete Book of Dinosaurs (2006), p. 160, "The early Cretaceous period saw the development of several lines of very active theropods. They included the maniraptorans, the so-called "raptors" with the killer claws on the hind foot, and the ostrich-mimics - omnivorous, fleet-footed theropod that probably lived like modern ground-dwelling birds. They would all have been warm-blooded and covered in feathers." I wouldn't use this in the article, as it's written between popular and semitechnical and gives a very blurry focus, but the idea is there. Someone has probably stated it more eloquently and more directly for the purposes of this article. J. Spencer (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has access to databases look for Deinonychus and feathers directly. There should be something explicit (either one way or another) since 2005. There will be a big snow storm hitting DC tomorrow, so the Library of Congress may be out for me. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As far back as 1986, Robert T. Bakker wrote that "it is quite probable that they [Deinonychus] had already evolved feathers for insulating their bodies." (The Dinosaur Heresies, p. 310, with accompanying illustration). This is in a caption specifically discussing Deinonychus. As noted above, Dixon (2006) illustrated Deinonychus and all other dromaeosaurs with a full coat of avian-style feathers. Also, Long and Schouten's Feathered Dinosaurs: The Origin of Birds (2008) illustrates a pack of fully-feathered Deinonychus attacking Tenontosaurus (p. 142-3), and the caption specifically refers to their "feathered forearms." This is in addition to the other sources which say that dromaeosaurids in general were almost certainly feathered. This may have been a controversial statement when Bakker suggested it in 1986, but it really isn't now. FanCollector (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Probable" is not fact and it is a wording used by scientists to say that they are speculating. Also, illustrations in general are not fact, they are speculations. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no direct evidence of feathers in this species and there likely never will be, because of the type of rocks its preserved in. Likewise, there is no direct evidence, and likely never will be, that they had skin. However, based on comparison to other animals, it is probable that Deinonychus had skin. But that's just speculation, right? We have no proof they had skin. Or eyes for that matter. There's proof Microraptor had eyes because of soft tissue preserved in the orbit, but Deinonychus lived millions of years later and is genetically separated. For all we know they lived like benthic, skinless blind cave worms, right?

Here's another: "Even without the feathers preserved, the avian characteristics of the skeleton demonstrate that these dromaeosaurs are birds. This discovery means that the larger dromaeosaurs, like Deinonychus and Velociraptor of “Jurassic Park” fame, were really feathered and are secondarily flightless birds." pdf link

That's not published in a journal, but it's from a companion book from a museum exhibit so it should carry some authority. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a section on what kind of skin they have? The color of their eyes? Their smell? Why should we have a speculative section that is not even labeled as speculative? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and people expect to be reading facts. If you want to put a section that is prominently labeled as scientific speculation and produced the speculative argument, that would be fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, calling them "birds" is really, really strange. That is a huge leap. Feathers does not make one a bird. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That depends on the definition. Most people would define birds as feathered, flying vertebrates. If dromaeosaurs had flying ancestors as many have argued, they would be birds. And for the record I agree there's not much need to explain the feather thing, but as this conversation demonstrates there may be a lot of interest in it given this is a high-profile dinosaur that has been, and continues to be inaccurately portrayed in the media. A user coming to the site and seeing all the feathered images may expect and explanation in the text. The universal, not even majority, but universal, opinion among scientists nowadays is that this family of dinosaurs had feathers, and there's no logical reason to suspect this particular species of being an exception. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a scientific article and only scientific information should be included, unless it is a section devoted to popular culture. Also, I don't think the images are appropriate unless they are done by qualified reconstruction experts. Too much conjecture in it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Define qualified because as far as I'm aware there isn't a degree in reconstructing dinosaurs. I'd just like to point out that even images done by qualified reconstruction experts have tones of conjecture. There are a lot of things we can't be certain of yet, like lips or no lips and the general specific details that havn't fossilised. It's not like the qualified reconstruction experts have time machines. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Qualified? Try to find out the standards the Smithsonian has for how they select artists to perform their reconstructions. If we aren't certain about something, it should not exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

'If we aren't certain about something, it should not exist' so..the Abiogenesis article should not exist? After all the scientists are speculating, they were never there? I don't know what the Smithsonian's current standards are but these, which look quite old, are aparently in there, [8]...dislocated tail and possibly neck, if its deplodicus then is inaccurately proportioned. If this is allosaurus then its inacuratly proportioned, its has pronated hands and possibly a dislocated tail. [9] The femurs in these dinosaur mounts are rotated back too far, [10] [11], These type of pterosaurs probably have stiffer, straighter necks than the one shown here [12]. I have never been there so I don't know what other art and reconstuctions they have on display. But just because somthing is in a meuseum doesn't automatically mean it's correct. The London Natural History Meuseum, has a many scuptures and paintings and mounts that arn't accurate. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - the abiogenesis page is about stuff that we are certain of: reliable sources are compiled to talk about a field of study. I am simply expressing the standards behind WP:V (verifiability), which requires us to have reputable sources that express a view and not just slop things together because we personally believe it is true. Also, the Smithsonian standards was listed to say what they qualify in an -artist-, not in accuracy. :)

Note - I searched Ebscohost under Deinonychus and feathers and found no results. Jstor has 25 results. None of the hits said anything pertinent. (one article did say that birds evolved from "coelurosaurian dinosaurs" from "The Mesozoic Radiation of Birds" p. 95)

Nature has 12 results. 1) (2008 - "A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran from China with elongate ribbon-like feathers") says "Avialae as the most inclusive clade including Vultur gryphus but not Deinonychus antirrhopus, and Aves as the least inclusive clade including Archaeopteryx and Vultur gryphus." 2) (1998 - "When is a bird not a bird?") says "The fossils of Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx have both the vaned and down-like feathers seen in living birds, so we infer that their common ancestor (group Eumaniraptora) had them. (This may be true for the Velociraptor-Deinonychus group, by inference, unless Protarchaeopteryx later turns out to be more closely related to birds than they are.) Down-like feathers are not known in specimens of Archaeopteryx." 3) (1999 - "A dromaeosaurid dinosaur with a filamentous integument from the Yixian Formation of China") says "Two small maxillary fenestrae, normally seen in dromaeosaurids and some other theropods, lie in the antorbital fossa. The exposure of the frontal is extensive and is more than twice the length of the parietal. The prefrontal is sutured with the lacrimal as in Deinonychus" and "The anterolateral part of the right coracoid of Sinornithosaurus is distorted by lateromedial folding (Fig. 4c), and was broader in life and differed little from those of other dromaeosaurids, such as Deinonychus18 and an undescribed specimen of Saurornitholestes (TMP (Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology) 88.121.39), except for the presence of a supracoracoid fenestra." and "It has been stated that the forelimbs of dromaeosaurids could not move like those of Archaeopteryx because of the posteroventrally facing glenoids8, 24. This assumption is based on Deinonychus18, the scapula and coracoid of which are actually incomplete. We believe that the glenoid was formed primarily by the scapula in Deinonychus, judging from the glenoid part of the coracoid, and may have faced laterally as in Sinornithosaurus, Velociraptor1 and Saurornitholestes (TMP 88.121.39)." 3) (2007 - "Flight of the dinosaur") says "In the 1860s, T. H. Huxley concluded, on the limited fossil evidence then available, that birds were nothing more than glorified dinosaurs. But other views subsequently prevailed, notably that birds stemmed from early archosaurs, although there were no candidate fossils. Huxley's hypothesis was revived and really took off in the 1960s with the discovery by John Ostrom of a small, highly agile and remarkably bird-like predatory dinosaur that he named Deinonychus. Since then, a wealth of skeletal evidence has accumulated in support of the view that birds originated from within a group of small terrestrial theropods, now termed maniraptorans (the raptors of popular books and films)."

I couldn't find anything definite or any suggestions that the Deinonychus had feathers within these two databases and Nature, which would definitely report on the discovery. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the text, all the instances of feathers in the current wiki artical say 'if feathers were present' like the articles they cite say, so whats the problem? Regarding the images and what qualifies the artists, wikipedia is user created content, the text the images etc, so there isn't any standards or qualifications required in the selection of who writes the text or creates the images. Whats is important is the accuracy of the text and images. We have an [[13]] for trying to judge that. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reread the history of the page and you will see that I removed the offending entry and started this section in order to explain why. Also, about the images - I merely pointed out above that I wanted a basis for the images that comes from a scientific source. As I shown, it is hard to find anything scientific about the feathers, so it would be promoting a bias. Images can mislead people towards an assumption that is not reinforced by definite citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OR, we have provided dozens of citations stating that dromaeosaurs in general likely had feathers. If you can find a citation questioning this form the past five years I'd welcome you to share it. If that's not enough basis for reconstructions than you're problem is with the entire field of paleo-art for the past ten years, and life restorations should be totally barred from articles on prehistoric animals of every kind. Say we posted a pic of Deinonychus with scaly skin? Can you find anything scientific to support that? I guarantee you cannot. As you mentioned the offending statement has been removed and nobody is suggesting it be put back in, merely suggesting sourced alternatives from the scientific literature, so I'm not sure where your complaint is. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that any user made pictures were probably not good unless there was a scientific or some other highly qualified version that could be compared to it for accuracy. We are only to report on what the scientific community has stated and not to extend it beyond what is accurate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the WP:Dino image review? We review all images used in articles and even guide their creation using scientific sources and skeletal diagrams made by paleontologists like Scott Hartman and Greg Paul. You never specified what makes an image or artist "highly qualified." Some of the artists working in the project have had work published or been comisisoned to create paleoart, and these people have a say in all submissions. Are you implying we should only allow images from "celebrity" artists, or knock-offs of their work? All dinosaur art necissarily involves some speculation, even on the part of professionals, regarding coloration, patterns of feathers or scales, etc. These things can and have been tested and some rejected. I recently removed a high-quality image from the Beipiaosaurus article because new finds showed some of the feathering to be inaccurate (i.e., the image did not have a feather coat as think, long or detailed as the new fossil showed). It should be telling that in most cases of image removal, it's because the artist was not liberal enough with the feathers ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the descriptions of my images for exarmple, I try to base the proportions on skeletal reconstructions by pros, many of which are published and photos of the bones. If they are published I say so, if they are not I try and link to an online version. Anyone can find that source and compare the skeletal to my image and comment on the accuracy. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - skeletal diagrams? That's it? What about color? That would have to be imaginative. I still don't feel comfortable with something not based on an actual drawing found within a scientific publication. If there was an actual published image that can be used to compare to a user based image to show that there is agreement between artistic features, then that is fine. If not, I would be cautious. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A skeletal reconstuction is very important in getting the proportions right and it is a Citable! How does a published dinosaur colour scheme have priority over a non published one?.....madness. So when Gregory Paul Publishes this [14] it's ok. How goes Paul know that its has those spots...he doesn't. No one will ever know colour with certainly, it will always be artistic. Always. Ok the link doesn't work, search google for the 'Unoffical Gregory S Paul gallery' and look at Heterodontosaurus trio Also people like Paul publish muscle reconstrutions. Steveoc 86 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't know how scientifically reliable the three links are by FanCollector below, they have illustrations of the animals. If someone was to use such things to base -their- version, then I would feel more comfortable if they recreated it purely from scratch. Does that make sense? I don't want Wikipedia to be "cutting edge" because we really aren't supposed to be. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I found 3 reliable sources stating that Deinonychus had feathers, I have re-inserted this statement into the article. FanCollector (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide the quotes with the surrounding context so we can all see which sources say what and possibly expand on it? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded scans of the relevant pages: Bakker 1986, Dixon 2007, Long and Schouten 2008. FanCollector (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm really confused, but are these supposed to be scientific sources? There are no inline citations. It is heavily focused on illustrations. These appear to be pop culture reference works. I was expecting something from serious paleontologists with serious research. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bakker is one of the most important figures in modern dinosaur paleontology, and The Dinosaur Heresies was and is a highly influential book. It has been regularly cited in the literature. Long and Schouten's book was published by Oxford University Press, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be a reliable source. The Dixon book is indeed aimed at a more popular audience; I added it because it was nonetheless published by a reputable publisher, it agrees with what the other sources say, and it displays yet another illustration of a feathered Deinonychus in addition to mentioning it in the text. You seem to have the impression that reconstructions aren't featured in "serious" dinosaur books, and that is simply not the case. In fact, both skeletal reconstructions and life restorations routinely appear in the scientific literature. FanCollector (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If he is an important figure, then it is because of research. If we want to use him, it should be his research. And Oxford University Press produces children's books took, but they shouldn't be cited on scientific pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain that further discussion with you on this issue would be productive. You seem to be looking for a reason to reject this, because of some sort of preconceived notion. That isn't how articles are supposed to be written. Articles are supposed to be written based on what the sources say. We have 3 sources explicitly saying that Deinonychus had feathers. All of them meet the requirements of verifiability policy. We have additional sources saying that feathers are a basal dromaeosaurid trait and that they were not secondarily lost in larger members of the family (Turner/Mackovicky/Norell). There are no sources claiming that Deinonychus did not have feathers. Are you here to improve the article, or to start and perpetuate pointless arguments? FanCollector (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - please reread WP:V. It is clear that saying that since no sources say something isn't true, then it should be added. Instead, WP:Verfiability says that only things clearly stated by reliable sources (in a science page, it requires it to be peer reviewed with scientific evidence) are allowable and that the rest falls under WP:OR. Please keep that in mind. This is an FA quality article. Removing the scientific standards would remove this as a true FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - please, please don't overstate what your sources say. The first one clearly says: "it is quite probable", not fact. The second says "although modern representations have them covered in feathers" and doesn't say if it is correct or where the basis of this exists. Finally, the third only discusses feathers in the "artist's note", definitely not scientific in the least bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And likewise, the article says "possible". This is more conservative than what the actual sources say ("probable"). Which guideline says only primary research is ok for science articles, and not books written by scientists for a popular audience? And where to draw the line? We cite The Dinosauria pretty extensively in these articles. Not a book accessible for a popular audience but not a journal article either. Is that not allowed anymore? Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Which guideline? WP:FRINGE. It sets forth the rigor needed within sourcing for scientific articles. There are secondary guidelines dealing with it also. I can also show you a few ArbCom cases on the matter if you wish. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that feathered dromaeosaurs are a "fringe theory"? That's what WP:Fringe deals with. Doesn't appear to apply to this case. In fact, the "Parity of sources" section appears to directly contradict you and suggests that "fringe" sources can include everything down to movies and web sites, as long as critiques can be taken from the same type of sources. Like I said, if you can find a single source from the last five years arguing with the (extremely common) practice of reconstructing Deinonychus with feathers I'd love to see it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

According to searches in Nature, Ebscohost, Jstor, etc, feathered Deinonychus is a fringe theory. There is no scientific evidence to show that they had feathers. There is only a few whimsical conjectures by people wanting to add new pictures to a few popculture books. There doesn't need to be a source saying they -don't- have feathers, just like there doesn't need to be a source saying they -didn't- shoot lasers from their eyes to kill their prey. Wikipedia can only put in what has been proven. Not what has not yet been "disproven". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources said it's a fringe theory. ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I kind of see the point that OR is making: the part on feathers shouldn't be mentioned in the article, as it was not backed up by a published scientific source. There is indeed no published article in a scientific journal, which explicitly states that "Deinonychus had feathers" for the very simple reason that no feather impression has ever been found associated with Deinonychus remains (and probably never will be for the reasons mentioned by DG2 further up). However, the description of Deinonychus as a feathered bird-like dinosaur is not a fringe theory as OR seems to believe. As pointed out several times here by several editors (one of them being a genuine paleontologist btw), this is strongly implied from facts published in the last 10 years: we know for a fact that all of Deinonychus's closest relatives for which soft tissue impressions are known were feathered, we know for a fact that theropods more primitive than Deinonychus were feathered. The logical implication is that Deinonychus itself was most probably feathered. This is not a statement without proof even if the word "probably" is used (we always want to be cautious), it is a logical deduction which ensued from scientific discoveries made in the last 10 years. Of course, there is always the possibility that Deinonychus was secondary featherless because of its size but this theory suffered a blow with the discovery that larger animals like the closely related Velociraptor did indeed have feathers. So even if no "scientific" source (following OR strict definition) states that Deinonychus itself had feathers, this is strongly implied in recent scientific litterature whenever dromaeosaurs are mentioned (remember Deinonychus is a dromaeosaur). For instance, in the paper entitled "the evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers" by R.O. Prum and A. H. Brush, published in 2002 in the Quaterly Review of Biology, I read "In combination with the independent phylogenetic evidence that dromaeosaurs and birds are sister groups, the homology with feathers is strongly supported." and further down: "Feathers originated in a lineage of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaurs including both Sinosauropteryx and birds, but excluding allosauroids, ceratosaurids, and coelophysids. Subsequently, feathers with primary branched structure (i.e., tufted), and possibly a rachis, evolved in a lineage that included the common ancestor of alvarezsaurids, ornithomimids, therizinosaurids, tyrannosaurids, oviraptorosaurids, troodontids, dromaeosaurs, and birds; branched structure may have already evolved if the feathers of Sinosauropteryx ultimately reveal genuine branched structure. The rachis, barbules, and the closed pennaceous vane had all evolved within or before a lineage that included the oviraptorosaurids, troodontids, dromaeosaurs, and birds. Flight and asymmetrical remiges and rectrices evolved within the exclusive common ancestor of the birds." Figure 6 in the same article which shows the phylogenetic tree of theropods is even more eloquent as it shows when the different feather developmental steps appear in the tree and dromaeosaurs are on a higher branch. In Phil Senter's "Comparison of forelimb function between Deinonychus and Bambiraptor (Theropoda:Dromaeosauridae)" published in 2006 in Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, there is even a figure (figure 7) showing a fully feathered dromaeosaurid (now this should qualify as a "restoration made by fully qualified experts" as it is published in a peer-reviewed journal article written by a respected paleontologist). Now why should we include a statement on "feathers" in the Deinonychus article while the same statement can be simply made in the "dromaeosaur" article instead? The reason is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the Deinonychus article is supposed to an encyclopedia entry and one of the characteristics of an encyclopedia is to be as comprehensive as possible on a given subject (that's why we allow for a popular culture section): Deinonychus is one of the famous dinosaurs which is intensively depicted in the media and readers would want to know why all modern depictions of it made by "serious paleontologists" (especially the ones as prominent as Bob Bakker, Dougal Dixon or John A. Long), all have chosen to depict Deinonychus with feathers. Finally I did not quite follow the logic behind OR's way of selecting which image is appropriate and which is not (how do you determine which one is made by "qualified experts", because it is in an article or in a museum and not in a popular book?). For the record, there are four reconstructions of ‘’Deinonychus’’ in the article (all feathered), one has been made by a professional paleoartist, and another has been chosen to be included in a display at the Yale Peabody Museum. My two cents… Cheers... Sorry that was me ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet no credible journal would report on Deinonychus as having feathers. Thus, all the rhetoric, metaphors, and fancy words in the world can be put together, and yet not one shred of proof to anything that is said pro-feathers here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read what has been said here ???? ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't. I would reread WP:FRINGE. It makes it very clear that articles must be blatant about what is stated, that they must be scientifically credible, and must represent the majority opinions. Seeing as how none of the major databases had anything that even reinforced that Deinonychus had feathers, that these were from pop culture sources without even using citations, and that there are only a handful that don't even give a guarentee, does not make it mainstream scientific fact. Please reread our guidelines on science articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the other way around. The fringe theory is the one saying that Deinonychus did NOT have feathers. You won't find any scientific article saying this. Yet we have provided several scientific sources saying that dromaeosaurs in general were feathered. If Deinonychus was an exception to the rule then it should have been proven and published. Non-feathered Deinonychus are the ones which are part of the pop-culture from people nostalgic of the times before the discovery of feathered dinosaurs and have no scientifically supported evidence. ArthurWeasley (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:V, none of the reliable sources say that Deinonychus had feathers. None of the databases has anything saying that they have feathers. There are tons of hits for them, but not one says they have feathers. I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong and the continued pursuit of this goes against all of our citation requirements at Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reread my comments above (and those of the other editors). No feather impression has been found associated with Deinonychus, this is why you can't find any hit on "reliable" sources saying explicitely that it had feathers. Now these reliable sources say that dromaeosaurs in general had feathers. Also read the end of my comments: there is a reason why modern depiction of Deinonychus all add feathers to it, and it is not because of some fringe theory or a collective figment of imagination from the paleoartists and paleontologists (why would they wrote books, including children books about feathered dinos if it was a fringe theory that most of their colleague don't agree with?). Being a comprehensive encyclopedia, feathers should at least be mentioned in the article for this very simple reason. Also your definition of reliable source seems way too restrictive: would the popular book "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking be considered a reliable source according to your criteria? ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - Arthur, you just stated that no feather impressions have been found. Therefore, you have no argument. Without scientific basis, this article is not allowed to include it. Wikipedia is not revolutionary. It is not ground breaking. It doesn't make it known what others refuse to make it known. The very fact that there are no impressions proves that anything contrary is merely a fringe opinion. I'm sorry, but that is how WP:V and WP:OR work. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We have provided two sources stating directly that they had "probably had feathers." This is not our educated inference, it's that of professionals. If your complaint is with the validity of secondary sources, that's a separate issue, and please address my questions about it about. What qualifies as a secondary source? Primary? Is Weishampel et al's The Dinosauria primary or secondary? Please cite Wiki guidelines in your response.

You keep citing WP:Fringe. Please quote where it says sources outside a published peer-reviewed journal are not allowed in Wikipedia articles. I'll quote a part of the same page that flatly denies this:

"Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources."

Also, if you want to police the use of speculative skin covering in images, maybe you should start with this article. Terror birds are extensively portrayed as having feathers, while there is no direct evidence whatsoever, and in fact less basis for the inference than we have for Deinonychus, in which both more primitive and more advanced members of the family are known via direct evidence to have had feathers.Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. No feather impressions have been found does not mean they did not have them! Same can be said about skin as pointed out by DG2. No muscle impressions have been found either so we shouldn't have a paleobiology section since there is no absolute proof these animals were capable of moving! All the possible range of motions that Deinonychus could have and possible behavior based on it are just pure speculations, then? Seriously, the "pro-feathers" arguments (the mainstream one) and scientifc basis were given several times in this discussion by different editors with proper citations, but either you did not understand them or you just plainly ignored them for reasons which are beyond my comprehension. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably does not mean that it is fact. Having no evidence to back up the assertion means that it fails acceptability.

Now Arthur, please read this. Claims that are not cited by evidence, which includes footnotes, references, and hard proof, is not "scientific".

It is verified by this, which makes it clear that "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject". I have provided three databases that use peer-review research and there is nothing there that has Deinonychus as having feathers. Two parts of fringe negate the inclusion of feathers. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained why your database search failed to provide you the information. Nobody is claiming that there are hard proof evidence that Deinonychus had feathers (the entry you deleted wasn't saying that either), but merely that it is a strong scientifically-backed probability in view of its phylogenetic position and this claim has been backed up by several references (that you have chosen to ignore for one reason or another). Now will you please answer the different questions asked by the different people involved in this discussion (like those above by Dinoguy2) instead of retreating back behind your "this must be a fringe theory as no source says it had feathers" explanation. This would help bring the discussion further. ArthurWeasley (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One other thing--I suggest actually reading the Senter paper on forelimb mechanics. It deals entirely with Deinonychus specifically, not dromaeosaus in general, and essentially takes for granted the presence of wing feathers, the way a paper on limb mechanics of Gastornis would. There is no direct quote to this effect that I can find but it's treated as a given throught the paper and included in the figures. This is certainly not a fringe paper and is widely cited as an authoritative source in other peer-reviewed papers. Wonder why this didn't pop up in your database search? Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cited the paper and figure in my comment above but apparently our friend even did not bother reading it .... ArthurWeasley (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The recent changes are crossing the line by putting in blatant POV and unscientific conjecture. Do I really need to take this up at the Fringe noticeboard? There is no scientific evidence proving that they had feathers. There are no peer-reviewed sources that accept the conjecture that they "probably" had feathers. There are a few books with illustrations that are sold as popular media. That is it. WP:V is very clear that we can only include facts. WP:FRINGE is clear that scientific articles need to have the rigor of peer-reviewed and direct evidence to back up the claims. Dinosaur articles are not special privileged. There is no exception. Right now, the page can be removed as a Featured Article because it is violating these guidelines. Please keep this in mind. The fact that people can say "Nobody is claiming that there are hard proof evidence" and still persist in trying to place it within the article shows that there is a lack of following the guidelines. Please, just follow the guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? You don't want to read any of the last four or five replies? Then by all means take it up elsewhere, maybe the folks there will be more reasonable and be willing to examine evidence presented against their case. You still have not addressed a single one of my questions or apparently read the Senter paper, which I clearly stated one post ago treats the presence of feathers as a given and contains figures illustrating feathered Deinonychus in a primary, published, peer-reviewed source. Even when presented with this you ignore it and pretend all our evidence comes form picutre books. Why should we listen to you again? Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, please read the policies and guidelines before admonishing others about them. According to our verifiability policy: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." (Emphasis added.) One of the books I cited was published by an academic press (Oxford University Press); the other two were published by respected mainstream publishing houses. Bakker's book has been regularly cited in the academic literature, as a cursory Google Scholar search demonstrates. As for the fringe theory guideline, it defines fringe theories as "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." But that is not the case here; the mainstream view among paleontologists is that dromaeosaurids had feathers. We have provided sources demonstrating this. You haven't provided a single source, or any reason to believe otherwise. Look, Ottava, there's really no way to put this politely: you are either woefully ignorant of the subject, or you are deliberately trolling. Either way, I suggest you cut it out. FanCollector (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here, FC. OR's (heh, unfortunate initials) edit history doesn't appear to contain any contributions to science articles and his userpage makes it clear his main interest in poetry and literature. Could be he simply does not know where the mainstream opinion and discourse is currently in paleontology. The media certainly doesn't help inform laypeople.

Look, I hope there comes a day when we don't even have to mention feathers. There's no mention in the Smilodon article that they had fur or in Gastornis that it had feathers. There's no direct evidence but everyone, paleontologists and laymen alike, just assume this is the case. For Deinonychus, even 20 years after Bakker, there's a disparity--a universal assumption among scientists that the public is oblivious to. For such a popular dinosaur, it needs to be addressed for now, since we're trying to write articles that are accessible and not confusing, that will internally address questions people may have. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right; it's rather late at night and I suppose I'm feeling a bit on edge at the moment. Anyway, I'm still trying to get the Ceratosaurus article into presentable shape, so I suppose I should concentrate on that for now rather than on this argument. FanCollector (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You can try to dismiss my credentials all you want, but I know standards on Wikipedia, and I have also dealt with fringe issues on various articles including academics and scientists. I worked as an Archaeological researcher for three years and I know how to read texts that deal with evidence found during digs. There is no such evidence. This has been stated by both sides. As such, the contrary cannot possible exist with the article as fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At the Fringe noticeboard there are tons of articles that treat things not proven as given. This includes telekenesis, ghosts, and other such things. One person acting as if something is true without having physical proof of it being true is not scientific. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying there's direct evidence. We're (I'm, at least) saying inference published by professionals should be allowed in the article. Putting feathers in a species that we know via common sense to be feathered but happens not to be preserved in the right kind of rocks to prov it directly on par with paranormal "theories" proves you have no idea what you're talking about. Start an edit war if you want, you're clearly outnumbered by people with knowledge of this field (which is a lot different from archaeology, by the way).

How many of those instnaces of ghost being treated as a given were published by highly repected scientists in respected science journals, subsequently cited by numerous other authorities on the subject without comment on the "controversial" part or any ciriticism whatsoever?

And with all due respect, I'm not sure you do know Wiki guidilines, you're cites have contradicted your statements here. Seems to me you're excellent at picking bits out of context to support your case that only certain papers from certain journals are "allowed", and you seem to be under the impression that a thoery is fringe until it's been published on by dozens of authors. That may be true in archaeology, but in paleontology you'll be lucky if there are more than three big-name scientists working on the same family of animals in any given decade. You're attempting to apply the standards of unrelated scientific fields to a field which you've spent paragraphs demonstrating your lack of knolwedge about. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, only peer reviewed information from articles that contain scientific fact with research to back it up are acceptable. It doesn't matter how well respected an individual is, they can still write a "pop piece" that would be unusable except in an article about their personal views. That's how Fringe works. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Do you like this?

From Nature magazine, the most exclusive and intensively peer - reviewed scientific publication in the world. NATURE |VOL 421 | 23 JANUARY 2003 pg. 335-340 Four-winged dinosaurs from China Xing Xu*, Zhonghe Zhou*, Xiaolin Wang*, Xuewen Kuang†, Fucheng Zhang* & Xiangke Du‡

"Recent discoveries suggest that pennaceous feathers are present on Dromaeosauridae17"

"Recent work shows that basal dromaeosaurs closely resemble Archaeopteryx in flight apparatus7,8,20,27"

(footnotes theirs). And, since Deinonychus is in family Dromaeosauridae, that means that there is more evidence that Deinonychus had pennaceous feathers than that it didn't. In a reconstruction, I don't think you have to leave everything out for which there is no evidence, you can use the best evidence available. So, if you have a fossil bird for which the head is not known, such as Apsaravis you don't have to reconstruct it as a headless bird in life.Jbrougham (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That has already been pointed out as not scientific. Listing the category does not imply that each member has it. As I showed above, Nature, along with Ebscohost, Jstor, et al, do not have anything stating Deinonychus have feathers. If there was a discovery that showed that they did, then there would be notices in each. The only acceptable evidence for einonychus having feathers is evidence that shows Deinonychus having feathers, not evidence showing something similar had them. Paleontologists over the past 100 years learned that when you start trying to reassemble things without proof, you end up with things like the Brontosaurus mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Phylogenetic inference is scientific. Science is not built on absolute proof, it is built by weighing relative bodies of evidence. If all birds in the family turdidae have feathers, like all other birds have feathers, you can infer that an extinct species of turdidae had feathers. You can't say it had them for certain, but you can infer. In reconstructing extinct animals inference absolutely must be used, without exception. I am not sure what you think "proof" is, but all physical facts are open to debate and disagreement. If you can't say that Dromaeosaurids had feathers, then you can't say that the holocaust is a historical fact or that the earth orbits the sun.Jbrougham (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Phylogenetic inference is scientific." One word: Brontosaurus. No proof? Its not correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the statement above does not make sense within the rules of english grammar, I am interpreting it to mean that mistakes can be made in reconstructions, and that these arise from mistaken inferences. That is certainly true, but continuous revision is a hallmark of science. We can clearly state our best inference today, and then the lucky chap who finds the next fossil gets to overthrow our assumptions with his better evidence. Why is that "not correct"? I will grant you this; we mustn't say that all dromaeosaurs HAD feathers. We should say that the evidence indicates that they had them, because phylogenetic inference and phylogenetic bracketing are lines of evidence, though not as strong as direct positive fossil evidence. You have a lovely bracket there with very old feathered dromaeosaurs like Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus, and then close relatives living after Deinonychus, like Velociraptor, with quill knobs. That is not, as you say, "no proof". That is a perfectly reasonable deduction based on multiple lines of evidence. One day we may find a Deinonychus fossil with preserved skin and it shows only scutes, because Deinonychus secondarily lost feathers. Then the evidence will tip WAY in favor of unfeathered reconstructions, but until then it is more parsimonious to assume that, as in all the families of living animals today, if a family has feathers all the genera have feathers and vice versa. I would think that only people who are completely unfamiliar with science will be surprised to learn that theories can be overturned by new evidence.Jbrougham (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense in English grammar? Simple sentence. its impossible for it not to make sense. Now this is lacking - "but continuous revision is a hallmark of science" We are not science. We are an encyclopedia. It is not our job to create the revision. It is our job to report the facts and only the facts, and not include the speculation (and the speculation is the part that is always revised). Oh, and another note - Jbrougham, species are reassigned genuses often. Don't think that a species is a binding process, as any genetic biologist can tell you that its not. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"its impossible for it not to make sense"? "simple sentence" is a sentence fragment. "its" should be "it's". Before that you wrote "No proof? Its not correct." Those two sentences are not articulate. But I think that you have revealed your main weakness as a thinker. You can only understand absolutes. If you think that it is impossible for you to make no sense, literally not possible, then this shows that you are not thinking logically. It is our job to report the facts, but all facts require interpretation. There are no facts without context. In other words, if I report that John Ostrom deduced from the phalangeal anatomy that dromaeosaurids walked with their second toes raised, that is a fact. If I then report that later trackway evidence supported that conclusion, that is also a fact. If both lines of reasoning are one day proven wrong (say because we demonstrate that, even with the second toe lowered like a seriema, it still doesn't leave a claw mark), we can report that and that is also a fact. Those are facts. Saying "its impossible for it not to make sense" is not a fact. It is a statement of absolute truth, like a religious statement. Moreover, you aren't the guy who gets to decide what proof is, what facts are, and what an encyclopedia is. So, although your irascible wikipedia persona has been amusing, if you can't understand that facts can change, and that inferences are a type of fact, then I fear that your influence on wikipedia will be limited.Jbrougham (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to talk about grammar, lets go ahead. However, rhetorically speaking you have admitted to not having an argument. However, your personal attacks are completely unnecessary and your grammar leaves much to be desired. So, if you want to attack me, at least clean up your own problems (especially when you improperly use words like "articulate" which deal with pronunciation and vocalization, not writing). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an argument. I have suggested to you that your definitions of "fact" and "proof" are incorrect. As for grammar and style, I would merely suggest that you strive for greater humility. I suggest that you carefuly consider the opinions that people are writing to you, rather than attempt to dispel it with absolutist statements and your own personal infallibility as the superior intellect. This is how one benefits from debate, and I have learned some hard lessons in the past from wikipedians that I once disagreed with.Jbrougham (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You can suggest -I- try to be humble all you want, but you are the one making personal attacks against other users over extremely petty measures. That is completely unbecoming and shows a lack of respect in regards to the standards at Wikipedia. This is further compounded by your willingness to add in original research. We can only report on facts and deal with facts. We are not allowed to fill in the gaps, use "logic" or other such things as you have suggested, like others, above and below. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We are engaged in a debate on this talk page. In a debate one may question the clarity of an opponents' statement, and one may question the logic therof. And I would argue that you have been unnecessarily dismissive of others' opinions. In any case, one can post peer reviewed research and summarize it and that does not constitute original research. I would also suggest that it is more valuable to have writers willing to find such papers and put them up than to erase large amounts of such work.Jbrougham (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a debate. Talk pages are not a debate. WP:CONSENSUS is about working together in an objective manner. There are no winners or loses. Wikipedia is not a battleground. The information that I removed both times was not peer-reviewed research. It was speculation added by Wikipedia users that go against what the sources are willing to say, and are put in a manner to make them seem as fact. This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. As suggested below, if people want to put reconstruction information in a section for speculation, then they should. However, there also needs to be a history of it so people can see how it changed over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I take your point. I did come into this talk page a bit late. We can agree that we want strict objectivity. I agree that saying Deinonychus almost certainly had feathers is not the ideal phrasing. I do, however, suggest that there is more evidence that it had them than that it didn't. This is because the scientific publications put Deinonychus in Dromaeosauridae, and they say that there is evidence that Dromaeosauridae had feathers, and we can report that completely objectively. We just have to be careful how we phrase it. I read a LOT of science papers, and I can phrase it the way they do.Jbrougham (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about an analogy? As an archaeologist, maybe you can identify with this. Say the general public, because of a Mel Gibson movie or something, believed that all Mayans lacked teeth. This was Mel's assumption because he read it in some racist 200 year old history book and while it was falling out of favor by the time he made the film, he decided to go with it for entertainment reasons. There's no evidence of Mayan skulls at all, so we can't prove that Mayans did or didn't lack teeth, but because we see them in other humans, and in modern Central Americans, it's likely they had teeth. Fast-forward 20 years, and all archaeologists have moved beyond the outdated concept. Though still no Mayan skulls have ever been found, because of Mel's high-profile movie, the general public still thinks it's a fact, or at least controversial, that Mayans lacked teeth. No scientists will come out and say they had teeth in the lit, because it's meant for specialists who already know that and there's no direct evidence. But in secondary sources, most go out of the way to try and correct Mel's mistake and point out that yes, in all likelihood they had teeth. Even primary sources on Mayan diet talks about how Mayans probably chewed their food, with detailed analysis and figues on how that would have worked, though there's no direct quote saying they had teeth. Now, you're writing a Wiki article on Mayans. You know most people reading it believe Mayans to be toothless, so it bears commenting on as Wiki is a tertiary source meant for general audiences. Why not cite a book written by a prominent archaeologist or two saying it's likely the popular depiction is wrong? Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) I saw this bobbing up on my talk page - Ottava it is increasingly mainstream to see dromaeosaurs depicted with feathers. sorry, alot of people above me on this page are very qualified to talk about this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Depicted without proof. There is no evidence, only artistic imagination. Fringe is very clear that its not acceptable. Qualifications are not, they even state exactly that there is no proof. Want to change it? Change the guideline to allow in random speculation as scientific fact. However, we all know that such a thing is completely 100% opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. Also, dromaeosaurs do not equal Deinonychus just like Oil does not equal Gasoline. Finally, have you seen the various depictions? Some say feathers on arms. Some say feathers on the whole body. Not even the individual imaginary depictions are able to have a consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, how did you get here again? The link on your talk page was to Deinosuchus and not Deinonychus, heh. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dinoguy, your argument falls completely flat because I have not once stated for anything about its exterior to be described, nor do I think that such a thing should be accepted in the article. There is no evidence for what their bodies looked like besides skeletal remains. This page must reflect that until a discovery proves one way or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate, and it seems to be consuming a lot of time. It looks like the crunch para in the article is:

I suggest that those involved (on both sides) should:

• Identify the passages from the article that are central to the debate. It looks to me like the crunch para in the article is:

Because of its extremely bird-like anatomy and close relationship to other dromaeosaurids, paleontologists hypothesize that Deinonychus was probably covered in feathers.[26][27][28] Clear fossil evidence of modern avian-style feathers exists for several related dromaeosaurids, including Velociraptor and Microraptor, though no direct evidence is yet known for Deinonychus itself.[29][30] When conducting studies of such areas as range of motion in the forelimbs, paleontologists like Phil Senter have taken the likely presence of wing feathers (as present in all known dromaeosuars with skin impressions) into consideration.

• Quote the relevant passages from each of the relevant sources (on both sides of the debate) and see what they add up to.
• If the para I quoted above is the key one, make it point out as far as the sources allow how many links there are in the chain of inferences.
• If there are any WP:RS that explicitly say what the current scientific consensus is, use them in the article. --Philcha (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could create a section called "hypothetical reconstruction" and describe how people originally depicted them with scales (encyclopedias, magazines, Jurassic Park, etc) and then how current groups depict them with feathers (some with feathers just on arms, some with feathers on the whole body). As long as you say that it is a reconstruction and not scientific fact, all of the information would be acceptable. The "quoting" part from the three sources above wouldn't be feasible, as they are mostly saying "look, there are feathers in our drawings". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to see that there is some progress forward in this discussion. Creating a section on "hypothetical reconstruction" might be a good idea but then I saw several problems with it. You seem to think that science is only made of a collection of hard facts that you call evidence. This isn't true, there are a lot of educated deductions, inferences and hypothesis made to bring a field forward, otherwise we won't be able to talk about the Big Bang theory or Evolution for instance. If we follow your logic, for a start, we also have to remove the whole Phil Senter section in the "limb function" paragraph, regardless of the citations, as all the work described in there is using the hypothesis that Deinonychus was feathered, because “there are no hard proof of the existence of feathers” in this animal. In the same caliber, the whole hunting behavior section has to be removed because after all, these are all inferences coming from the interpretation of a few bones but nobody has actually seen them hunting. Besides, hunting or preying requires an acute sense of either vision or smell, but there is no hard evidence that these animals had eyes as no fossilized eyes have been found and there is no citation to back up that they had eyes (that they were blue, yellow or red with blue polka dots is besides the point). Birds have eyes, crocodiles have eyes but this does not prove that Deinonychus had eyes because "Archosaur does not equal Deinonychus as oil does not equal gasoline" if I may use your analogy. In fact, if we strictly follow your logic all that will remain in the body of the article is a description of a few bones, the only hard facts known about this animal. Even the skeleton reconstructions will have to go, as these are hypothesized reconstructions, as no complete skeleton of Deinonychus is known. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, you are mistaken. Science can be whatever you want. However, Wikipedia is just a collection of hard facts. Wikipedia is only a summary of what is proven. It is not a new paper to introduce new ideas. If you want, you could create a Wikiversity page that outlines the reasons why people believe that they had feathers. A project like that welcomes well thought out research based arguments that are set to educate people. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must conform to the limitations of one. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, it you that is mistaken. Wikipedia is a collection of the opinions of reliable sources, see WP:V. In this case the scientific consensus is that Deinonychus probably had feathers, although it is not considered certain beyond all reasonable doubt. That is what the article currently says. If you can produce reliable sources that flatly deny that Deinonychus had feathers, please do so. Until then you are just wasting everyone;s time. --Philcha (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OR, please define "hard facts". The only hard facts about Deinonychus are a collection of bones and may be some eggs (but this could be questioned as there is no definitive proof they belong to Deinonychus, see Oviraptor). So wikipedia is only allowed to be a collection of hardd facts and be a summary of what is proven. According to you, scientific inferences are not allowed in view of your comment above on Brontosaurus, because scientists can be mistaken by making inferences and this should not be in an encyclopedia! Phil Senter is making inferences about the degree of motion of the forelimbs based on the probable presence of feathers, so this part should be banned. Prun and Brush are making inferences when they superimpose the developmental step of feathers over the theropod phylogenetic tree based on a few fossils, showing that dromaeosaur in general must have been feathered, so this can not be in there either. There is nothing proven about the hunting behavior of Deinonychus inferred from the study of bones and animal behavior in general, proof being that one study completely contradicts the other, so this should not be put in the article either, etc ... All of these studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals but do not present any "hard facts". ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - Phil - "Wikipedia is a collection of the opinions of reliable sources". This is very wrong. Science based articles are not about opinions. They are about research and facts. Probably is not good enough. If there is no evidence, then there is no evidence. This isn't a page about the speculation. There isn't a section devoted to the speculation. Wikipedia cannot put speculation as fact. That is the very definition of original research.

ArthurWeasley - "because scientists can be mistaken by making inferences and this should not be in an encyclopedia" Sure reads exactly like what the Fringe guideline puts forth as standards. Look at the MSG article for people trying to add in what is "probable" as opposed to what is factual. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Still continuing to pick sentences out of context to try to justify your point and ignoring all the rest. You still haven't answered a single question asked by any of the contributors here. How could anyone take you seriously? ArthurWeasley (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some proposals

Here are just a few things that I think we could talk about to clean up what I feel is a problem:

• Add a section on dromaeosaurids as a whole. This would be added under "Paleobiology and paleoecology" and can talk about the common traits of the family as a whole and what important role the Deinonychus served within understanding the family. This will not be about classification, but about traits that are part of the family and what facts show where Deinonychus matches up or differs (size for instance).
• Add a section on reconstruction. This would be added under "Paleobiology and paleoecology" and deal with the attempts to fill in the gaps, speculation based other animals and their features, etc. It will also deal with the history of the speculation since its first discovery so people can see how thoughts have changed over time.

This would separate the information that borders on OR synthesis from the current sections and distinguish fact from educated guesses or trying to fill in data that does not exist. It would merely require a rearrangement and a small add/elaboration on some material to accomplish this. I feel that it would allow a student to be able to see how it matches up, to see where science is progress, and to be truer to the information as it is present. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, finally something constructive!! A section on dromaeosaurids: not necessary, we can simply link to the existing article about them. A section on reconstructions: YES, that's a good idea. We have something similar in the Diplodocus article, so why not here. What do you think, folks? ArthurWeasley (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I favor keeping it as it is. I don't think it is necessary to move anything speculative into a reconstruction section, so long as those speculations are in properly cited, peer - reviewed sources. In other words, Paleontology papers almost always suggest something about the Zoology of the extinct taxa considered, and that is always partly speculative, but it is still scientific and factual so long as we report it properly. I wouldn't want to have a section for bone fragments, which are the dry facts, and a separate section for the skeleton reconstructed. I think it's less confusing to put all the material about the bones in one section.Jbrougham (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was rechecking the Diplodocus page and there is actually no 'reconstruction' section per se but the paleobiology section kind of go over the different historical reconstructions from the times it was supposed to be tail-dragging and live in swamps, to the modern erect position with nostrils closer to the mouth. I was thinking in having something similar for Deinonychus starting from the outdated scaly dinosaur with prognated hands to the modern depiction with primary feathers on the arms. But I agree this might be difficult to do. ArthurWeasley (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the Diplodocus section in question would fail OR's standards. It states something obvious and common-sensical (that Diplodocus was traditionally depicted with a raised neck), but you're gonna have a heck of a time finding quotable statements to that effect across dozens of journal articles. Even you you can find one, that just makes it a fringe theory, when we all know it was the universal view for years. The only type of texts that would talk about how such a view was universal are secondary sources written for a popular market, which are apparnetly banned from Wikipedia (yeah right). Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said any text was "banned". I just said that unique information on science needs to come from a source that is peer reviewed and contains citations. This kind of section would talk about the history of the speculation of "filling in the gaps", and if it talked about popular views on it too then that would just make it more complete. Fringe states that non-peer reviewed cited works can be included as long as they are not presented as fact, and juxtaposing it with hard facts would do that. Having them in a section devoted to the speculation and how it developed since their first discovery would allow people to know that this is a developing view, based on academic speculation, and the opinion of notable individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier the only hard facts are the bones. All the rest have some amount of speculations (feather, diet, and even skeletal reconstruction). So may be the easiest way to proceed is to let OR rearrange the text in separating what is fact from what is speculation or fringe theory according to what he/she thinks is the proper way to write a science article in wikipedia, then we will have a clear view of what he/she meant. Agreed? ArthurWeasley (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are different levels of speculation, I can admit that. You can tell various habits from teeth shapes, sizes, etc. Comparing the hook to the bird's, for instance, wouldn't be a speculation per se, but an analogy based on scientific principles of limited amounts of actions. Something like what their skin color would be, I'm sure we can all admit, isn't based so much on such principles. Since some of the sources have feathers around the arms and others on the whole body, I know we can admit that even among the feather theorists there is some conflict. I should have time at the end of next week to put together a proposal for a paragraph. However, I would need the following: historical speculation - 1) what made things like the version in Jurassic park possible (any notable books, pictures, etc that people can remember would be good) 2) the beginning of the bird theory, 3) the beginning of the feather theory. We can put together a simple timeline. As a side note - Utahraptor - when were they discovered with feathers? The article is lacking that kind of information. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Utahraptor is in the same situation than Deinonychus: no feather impression but presence of feathers inferred from phylogenic position. For a start, may be you could just rearrange the paragraphs in the existing article to separate what you consider fact from what you consider speculation at different level? ArthurWeasley (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of it was removed in the first wave and the wording changed to get rid of it. My comments are basically on the discussion above about people wanting to insert more information on it. We do want more information on the various people who believe in reconstructing them with feathers and why they believe that, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that all the bits on Deinonychus having probably feathers based on phylogeny are now OK? ArthurWeasley (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No (but not in a disagreement) - I am saying that the original problem, i.e. faulty language, is corrected. That is not to say that the sections can't be further improved. It just means that the major problem is addressed and was addressed in my original edit (and subsequent edits didn't restore the original problematic language). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You lost me. I thought you were complaining about having sentences such as "the evidence suggests that the Dromaeosauridae, including Deinonychus, had feathers" in the article because we could not find any primary source to back this up explicitly and this could not be considered as a hard fact, and as a compromise you were proposing to move this into a "reconstruction" section. Now you are saying that it was just a question of faulty language and that it was already addressed ? ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the very beginning of this thread. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmmh...Sorry but it still does sound like it. ArthurWeasley (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - I'm not sure what to tell you then. It seems like there was a disconnect around the time you jumped in on the discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Anyway your proposals do not seem to attract much attention from the paleofolks so I'd suggest to leave the article as is. Seems you are not unhappy with it now so no worries. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the conversation as a whole is dead, so consensus any which way would be DOA. The original problem is removed so there is no more WP:FAR concern. Everything else is just if someone has the time or wants to improve on it. Posterity I guess? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. So be it. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty epic, sorry I missed it all.--Koncorde (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)