Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-25118285-20170113233624/@comment-32070106-20170903212747

PCAwesomeness wrote: Raptorofwar wrote:

PCAwesomeness wrote:

Raptorofwar wrote: ADrunkMeganeura wrote: LordHelix990 wrote: Also it has no feathers. Compy had feathers There is some debate about compy feathers. Even when stuff like Sinosauropteryx had them? Sure, it's known that Compsognathus had scales, but those were on its tails and hips. In all other aspects, it's seriously more obvious than the tyrannosaur integuement debate This is quoted off of Wikipedia.

"Integument

Evidence from related species suggests that the body might have been covered with feather-like structures. Some relatives of Compsognathus, namely Sinosauropteryx and Sinocalliopteryx, have been preserved with the remains of simple feathers covering the body like fur, promoting some scientists to suggest that Compsognathus might have been feathered in a similar way. Consequently, many depictions of Compsognathus show them with coverings of downy proto-feathers. However, no feathers or feather-like covering have been preserved with Compsognathus fossils, in contrast to Archaeopteryx, which are found in the same sediments. Karin Peyer, in 2006, reported skin impressions preserved on the side of the tail starting at the 13th tail vertebra. The impressions showed small bumpy tubercles, similar to the scales found on the tail and hind legs of Juravenator. Additional scales had in 1901 been reported by Von Huene, in the abdominal region of the German Compsognathus, but Ostrom subsequently disproved this interpretation; in 2012 they were by Achim Reisdorf seen as plaques of adipocere, corpse wax.

Like Compsognathus, and unlike Sinosauropteryx, a patch of fossilized skin from the tail and hindlimb of the possible relative Juravenator starki shows mainly scales, though there is some indication that simple feathers were also present in the preserved areas. This may mean that a feather covering was not ubiquitous in this group of dinosaurs." Dude, that's just like saying "uhhh, there's no evidence of feathers for Deinonychus and Utahraptor, so I'm gonna portray them as scaly".

Besides, a few patches of scales from the tail and hindlegs doesn't mean that Compsognathus was "omg 100% scaly Jurassic Park lizard confirmed". Tyrannosaurids are a bit more controversial because of their size, the fact that they have skin impressions from many places on the body, and all the osteological correlates they have on their heads. They could've had feathers, and they could've not had feathers. There is imprecision in paleontology. I'm just saying it's not guaranteed they had feathers.

They're fossils. They're old. Nothing is certain.

And on that note, let's end this debate about million-year-old creatures and stop pretending we can guarantee any single part of their existence. They're old. Nothing is certain.