Four winged dinosaur fossil found..

[blike]

Scientists in China claim to have found fossil remains of a dinosaur called a "Microraptor" that likely glided from place to place.

 

"As far as I'm concerned, these are authentic fossils. They've presented extra information to go over that hurdle," said Richard Prum, a University of Kansas bird evolution expert and author of a companion piece in Nature."

 

These fossils could help refine the theory of how dinosaurs transitioned to birds.

 

You can find the story here.

[Ozman]

It seems that many people who see images of these fossils and say something to the effect "Did dinosaurs really fly?" are comepletely missing the point.

Obviously these dinos had feathers structured into something that resembled wings. Four of them in this case. That part is unique (as far as I inow) among vertebates unless you include the gliding / flying squirrells.

 

They were raptors. They needed the wings either to (a) steal their prey food or

(b) escape the parents of the prey they just snatched

[Glider]

I recognise that fossil. By coincidence I recently saw an investigation into it, which revealed it to be an extremely clever fake. It is not that the fossils per se were faked (not possible) but that the fossil in the picture actually consists of two fossils. The fore section (with the wings) belongs to one fossil, and the caudal section (with the long, straight tail) belongs to another.

 

The reason this was considered an important find was that it suggested a missing link between dinosaurs and birds, a dinosaur (indicated by the structure of the tail) with wings.

 

However, the fraud was discovered by by an amazing chance. They found the other half of that exact fossil at it's site of origin (by other half, imagine two halves of a mould which contains the bones). Finding the other half showed that the animal did in fact have wings, but that the caudal section was completely different, and that the caudal section of the fossil shown in that image, in fact comes from a completely different animal.

 

Subsequent tests on the rock surrounding the fossil show that although the rock from the front and back ends of the fossil is the same kind of rock, and of the same age, there are elemental differences which indicate that they were formed in different locations.

[Ozman]

Yes. I read that.

But I have to question the idea that the elemental differences in the two sections indicate two seperate locations. I think it could be two adjacent (touching) locations, i.e. over the length of the skeleton, that somehow endured different wethering and fossilization.

 

For instance, if the skeleton was of an animal that somehow became entangled, either in foilage, mud, etc. died, and was fossilized, could the covering overburden have been a different elemental makeup. I believe it could. I'm not convinced that the elemental difference is evidence of fraud.

I am convinced that some dinos developed wings (take that one as a given).

The questions then are: (1) Why did they develop feathers, (2) did they develop flight.

 

To question (1), see my earlier post.

To questions (2), the successfull escapees described earlier probably did develop flight.

 

But here is the really important question: what was in the trees serving as prey?

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Ozman

But here is the really important question: what was in the trees serving as prey?

 

I suspect it was the smaller dinosaurs that developed wings to escape from larger predators, rather than competition for prey; which should lead to better climbing abilities; which has more of an advantage due to the interferece of branches with effective capture.

[Glider]

Originally posted by fafalone

 

I suspect it was the smaller dinosaurs that developed wings to escape from larger predators

 

This makes a lot of sense, and supporting evidence can be found in the behaviour of many modern animals, so called 'flying frogs', flying lizards and flying squirrels etc.. have all evolved the ability to fly (actually protracted glide) to escape predation rather than gain food.

[blike]

I recognise that fossil. By coincidence I recently saw an investigation into it

 

The new one? It mentioned in the article that their was another that had been a fraud, but that this one had already undergone several tests

 

Maybe they used a picture of the old fossil find?

[Ozman]

These fossils have been typefied as raptors. They preyed on (or is "predated" the word?) --they ate-- something. I think their prey was in the trees or they would not have developed the wing structures.

I read the same piece you did, blike, about the first find being "fraud", but the more recent find having undergone extensive testing to rule it out, whether outright fraud or misinterpretation, before anouncing the find.

 

If they were raptors, and they had wings, what was in the trees to serve as prey?

Even if the wings were to help them escape, what were they escaping in the trees?

[Glider]

Originally posted by blike

Maybe they used a picture of the old fossil find?

 

Well, the picture shown above is definitely the one of the fraud. The reason it caused so much excitement to begin with was its tail. The long, straight tail suggested saurian features, whilst the front end of the fossil was more bird-like. Thus, it was hailed as a missing link.

 

However, as I say, when they found the 'negative' of the front end of the fossil at the original site, it showed that the creature had an entirely different tail, much more bird-like. I believe they also found fossils revealing the creature who's tail is shown in that picture.

 

However, this only concerns the fossil pictured. If there has been a new find, then I don't know about it, so you could be right, there might be a new one.