Support NeoGAF

[Demoncarnotaur]

Whoa, this is pretty cool stuff.

Oh, and before people ask, Pteranodons aren't Dinosaurs, they are flying reptiles. But 'Yi Qi' is a Dinosaur, which makes it very unique.

Anyways..

NYTimes

Now a discovery of 160-million-year-old fossils in northeast China, reported Wednesday in the journal Nature, calls attention to a dinosaur species that may have tried to take to the air on featherless wings. It was one of presumably many experiments in early flight that failed the test of time and was eventually abandoned. Scientists are not even sure how it was supposed to work.

After studying findings by a Chinese-led team of paleontologists, Kevin Padian, an American dinosaur authority, could only think that the attempted flight innovations “have just gone from the strange to the bizarre.”

The fossil remains belonged to a previously unknown species of an obscure group of small dinosaurs, related to primitive birds such as the famous Archaeopteryx. It had feathers, but they seemed too insubstantial to be useful in flight. Then the scientists said they recognized the unusually long rodlike bone extending from each of the two wrists: curving structures possibly supporting an aerodynamic membrane.

Sure enough, patches of membrane tissue were detected along the bone supports. So, the scientists concluded, their specimen must have had wings somewhat like those of bats or flying squirrels. Nothing like this had been found before in dinosaurs.

Lots more at the link.

---

 

[Anton Sugar]

Closest we'll ever get to an Ickysaurus.

 

[yamo]

...and here I thought that dinosaurs were reptiles.

What was the difference?

 

[Guevara]

Pretty sure I killed one of those in Bloodborne.

 

[Speevy]

I wonder how long into human history any of these animals might have survived if they lived during our time. I don't think it would have taken man long to say "Nope, nuke it from orbit."

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

...and here I thought that dinosaurs were reptiles.

What was the difference?

They share a common ancestor, and as such share many traits.

Birds evolved from within a branch of Dinosaurs.

 

[Cow Mengde]

I am dizzy. I'm not even joking. The other day I'm trying to wrap my head around Chilesaurus and now this.

 

[Prez]

So they were a little bit like big bats?

Yes, I know bats are mammals.

 

[AbsolutBro]

So it didn't just lose its feathers before it was petrified? I mean, it's related to Archaeopteryx which had feathers, and we know that fossils often lose a lot of detail for an animal.

 

[ampere]

Oh, and before people ask, Pteranodons aren't Dinosaurs, they are flying reptiles.

I didn't believe you but I looked it up and it's true...

My world is shattered.

At least birds are still dinosaurs. I can still sleep tonight.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Seriously, this Dinosaur is crazy.

I really wonder how many other bizarre creatures existed.

So it didn't just lose its feathers before it was petrified? I mean, it's related to Archaeopteryx which had feathers, and we know that fossils often lose a lot of detail for an animal.

Nope:

I didn't believe you but I looked it up and it's true...

My world is shattered.

At least birds are still dinosaurs. I can still sleep tonight.

Wait til you find out the Mosasaurus isn't a Dinosaur either, but rather an aquatic reptile!

 

[Cow Mengde]

Wait til you find out the Mosasaurus isn't a Dinosaur either, but rather an aquatic reptile!

But dragons are real now.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I just saw this and I am just in awe. A while back I was wondering "what could they possibly discover that would be really be that surprising" and this is it.


Also it looks like a baby Monster Hunter monster.

I am dizzy. I'm not even joking. The other day I'm trying to wrap my head around Chilesaurus and now this.

Hadn't heard of that either. Another herbivorous theropod! Huh! Not unheard of, but still really neat to find them!

 

[Loakum]

I'm surprised they haven't really tried to bring a dinosaur back to life, like they are trying with the Woolly Mammoth.

 

[WyndhamPrice]

I'm surprised they haven't really tried to bring a dinosaur back to life, like they are trying with the Woolly Mammoth.

I think the issue with that is that any genetic material is too degraded at this point to use

 

[Ultratech]

Also it looks like a baby Monster Hunter monster.

Yup. Definitely resembles Gypceros or Qurupeco.

 

[triplestation]

so a flying reptile with fur?

 

[jackissocool]

so a flying reptile with fur?

No, that's pterosaurs. They had fur. This had feathers, but it flew using membranous wings, not flight feathers.

 

[Toxi]

This is an bizarre discovery. Nature continues to throw curveballs at us.

 

[Insane Metal]

Could it be a kind of dinosaur that climbed trees and glided down?

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

WHOA

that's super fascinating! I love dinosaurs <3

...

where's the line that separate dinosaurs from ancient reptiles? is it a time thing? did they exist in different time line or is it more biological factor separator? size thing?

halp educate me dinogaf <3

 

[Log4Girlz]

I just saw this and I am just in awe. A while back I was wondering "what could they possibly discover that would be really be that surprising" and this is it.


Also it looks like a baby Monster Hunter monster.

A little baby Monster Hunter monster you say?

 

[CadetMahoney]

pterodactyls are still dinosaurs to me.

Jurassic Park told me.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Could it be a kind of dinosaur that climbed trees and glided down?

It's very much possible. They don't think it's a great flier, but the only other use of wings would be for gliding.

...

where's the line that separate dinosaurs from ancient reptiles? is it a time thing? did they exist in different time line or is it more biological factor separator? size thing?

halp educate me dinogaf <3

Dinosaurs are ancient reptiles. If you're talking about what separates dinosaurs from things like Pterosaurs, Mosasurs, and other reptiles, it comes down to skeletal features. Animals are grouped together based on the amount of similar features they share with each other. Pterosaurs for example share enough features with dinosaurs to be grouped into archosaurs, but as you go deeper, they don't share enough features to be called dinosaurs, therefore they're split into another branch, thus pterosaurs. Dinosaurs themselves are further broken down into more specific groups. Both Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops are dinosaurs, but they're also fall into two very different branches of dinosaurs.

 

[Toxi]

No, that's pterosaurs. They had fur. This had feathers, but it flew using membranous wings, not flight feathers.

Not really fur; pycnofibers are a unique kind of fuzz that only pterosaurs evolved.

WHOA

that's super fascinating! I love dinosaurs <3

...

where's the line that separate dinosaurs from ancient reptiles? is it a time thing? did they exist in different time line or is it more biological factor separator? size thing?

halp educate me dinogaf <3

Dinosaurs were ancient reptiles, but not all ancient reptiles were dinosaurs. The main distinguishing feature of dinosaurs is the evolution of an upright stance, accompanied by a hole in the hip where the leg connects. Birds are the only living dinosaurs today.

Pterosaurs and crocodiles are close relatives of dinosaurs, all three being in the archosaur group of reptiles, but they are not dinosaurs. The three branches diverged in the Triassic Period.

Going further down the family tree, archosaurs are diapsids, a category that also includes lizards, snakes, and turtles. The other main branches of reptiles are the anapsids, which don't have any modern descendants, and the synapsids, which include mammals like you and me.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I who the who the whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.

So they were a little bit like big bats?

Yes, I know bats are mammals.

"BATS AREN'T BUGS!"

 

[webkatt]

I still refuse to believe that dinosaurs had feathers.

 

[Pikma]

I just saw this and I am just in awe. A while back I was wondering "what could they possibly discover that would be really be that surprising" and this is it.


Also it looks like a baby Monster Hunter monster.

Dat Monster Hunter RPG marketing

 

[Green Mamba]

So what does this mean for the other two Scansoriopterygids? The odd wrist bone wasn't discovered in either of them, though granted Scansoriopteryx itself is known from infants alone last I remember, so it's possibly they hadn't developed them yet. Epidexipteryx didn't have the wrist things so far as anyone knows. I mean, it's possible it did... I dunno. Possibly they had simpler flying-squirrel-esque membranes? That would certainly make a lot more sense than basically anything I've ever heard posited for them before, because they were just that weird.

This is a really fascinating discovery.

 

[DragonGirl]

...and here I thought that dinosaurs were reptiles.

What was the difference?

Reptile is an archaic classification that's not useful anymore. It's pretty much a junk drawer that everything "not mammal, not bird" got tossed into, except birds are dinosaurs so if dinosaurs go in the drawer, birds have to as well, but reptiles are supposed to be all scaly and cold blooded, never mind how inaccurate that is. Basically, you can call dinosaurs reptiles, but reptile doesn't mean anything. If you want some familial accuracy in your classifications, look up cladistics.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

I who the who the whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.



"BATS AREN'T BUGS!"

iunderstoodthatreference.gif

 

[Jaeger]

I think China has a stockpile of fossils, and whenever something is discovered elsewhere they pull one out to oneup them.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Thank you, Toxi and CowMengde!

I was one of those plebes that would say, for the longest time, that my favourite dinosaur was that one that swims in the ocean. The big one with the four flippers and long neck. MAJESTIC~

but then gaf laughed at my face. and i shy away from dinothreads~

(no, not really. i've never shyed away. im a bit of a pest like that)





now my favourite dinosaur is velociraptor damn you jurassic park~

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Oh wow, that's certainly a fascinating little creature.
It's basically equivalent to finding a Paleogene mammal with "flight fur".

The other main branches of reptiles are the anapsids, which don't have any modern descendants, and the synapsids, which include mammals like you and me.

(Sorry if you already know this Toxi and you just misspoke...but...)
Past sharing a common ancestor, synapsids like ourselves are completely distinct from the sauropsid/diapsid/"reptile" branch of the family tree; if I'm not mistaken, the common ancestor that we share with our sister group was in it's own distinct Carboniferous animote lineage and therefore dismantles the idea that synapsids are an offshoot of the sauropsid branch

This is generally why modern paleontologist often refer to the non-mammalian synapsids as proto-mammals or stem-mammals; those two terms are much, much more accurate than the misleading archaic "mammal-like reptile" label that's often still tossed around by the majority of laymen.

 

[Cow Mengde]

So what does this mean for the other two Scansoriopterygids? The odd wrist bone wasn't discovered in either of them, though granted Scansoriopteryx itself is known from infants alone last I remember, so it's possibly they hadn't developed them yet. Epidexipteryx didn't have the wrist things so far as anyone knows. I mean, it's possible it did... I dunno. Possibly they had simpler flying-squirrel-esque membranes? That would certainly make a lot more sense than basically anything I've ever heard posited for them before, because they were just that weird.

This is a really fascinating discovery.

It's possible Epidexipteryx had wings but wasn't preserved with them. That finger is just weird.

 

[Toxi]

(Sorry if you already know this Toxi and you just misspoke...but...)
Past sharing a common ancestor, synapsids like ourselves are completely distinct from the sauropsid/diapsid/"reptile" branch of the family tree; if I'm not mistaken, the common ancestor that we share with our sister group was in it's own distinct Carboniferous animote lineage and therefore dismantles the idea that synapsids are an offshoot of the sauropsid branch

This is generally why modern paleontologist often refer to the non-mammalian synapsids as proto-mammals or stem-mammals; those two terms are much, much more accurate than the misleading archaic "mammal-like reptile" label that's often still tossed around by the majority of laymen.

Thank you for the corrections. I didn't know that sauropsid was a distinct branch; I was mistakenly believing all amniotes were considered reptiles.

 

[Manu]

Amazing.

These are the kind of news that make me all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Tesseract]

that's pretty astonishing, really. evolution is bizarre, the more you break it down the weirder it gets.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

This just really makes me wonder what other evolutionary anomalies that occurred in some Dinosaurs are just waiting to be discovered.