Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Dinosaur Tracking

Where paleontology meets pop culture

Hominid Hunting

Meet the members of the tangled human family tree

Innovations

How human ingenuity is changing the way we live

Surprising Science

Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science


July 5, 2012

Did All Dinosaurs Have Feathers?

The skeleton of Sciurumimus, seen under UV light. You can see traces of protofeathers alon the dinosaur’s tail. Photo by Helmut Tischlinger.

On Monday, the world met yet another fuzzy dinosaur. The little theropod – named Sciurumimus albersdoerferi – is beautifully preserved in a slab of roughly 150 million year old limestone found in Germany. (These deposits have also brought us Archaeopteryx and the also-fluffy Juravenator.) And, with a little evolutionary context, Sciurumimus hints that filament-like protofeathers were more common among dinosaurs than we previously expected.

Birds – the only surviving lineage of dinosaurs – are covered in plumage. No surprise there. But since 1996, paleontologists have identified about 30 genera of non-avian dinosaurs with feathers. Most of these dinosaurs are coelurosaurs – the major group of theropod dinosaurs that contains tyrannosaurs, the switchblade-clawed deinonychosaurs, the truly weird therizinosaurs, and, among others, birds. As the discoveries accumulated, it seemed that feathers originated at the base of this group, and were inherited by birds. And feathers were not only present an small, especially bird-like dinosaurs. As the recently-described Yutyrannus shows, even 30-foot-long tyrannosaurs were fluffy.

Up until a few years ago, birds and their closest non-avian relatives were the only dinosaurs known to have feathers. Simple enough. But then two ornithischians crashed the party.You see, the dinosaur family tree is split into two halves – the saurischians on one side, and the ornithischians on the other. The split goes back about 230 million years or so, nearly to the origin of the very first dinosaurs.

The feathery coelurosaurs belong to the saurischian side of the tree, but paleontologists have also discovered dinosaurs on the other side – on the ornithischian branches – with feather-like structures. In 2002, paleontologists discovered that the archaic ceratopsian dinosaur Psittacosaurus had a brush of bristle-like structures jutting from its tail. And in 2009, another team discovered Tianyulong – another ornithischian dinosaur with a row of similar filaments running down its back. The bristles were not just like the fuzz and feathers seen among the coelurosaurs, but they were structurally similar.

Paleontologists were left with two possibilities. Either protofeathers evolved multiple times in different dinosaur lineages, or simple “dinofuzz” was an ancestral dinosaur feature that was later lost in some lineages. We don’t have enough fossils yet to know for sure, but the discovery of Sciurumimus is a significant clue that most, if not all, dinosaur lineages were at least partially decorated with protofeathers.

Even though Sciurumimus is a theropod dinosaur – part of the saurischian side of the family – it isn’t a coelurosaur. Sciurumimus is a megalosauroid, which is a lineage of dinosaurs that’s closer to the base of the theropod group. In other words, Sciurumimus is a relatively archaic theropod that isn’t very closely related to birds, yet it still has dinofuzz.

Paleontologist Thomas Holtz helped provide some context on Twitter shortly after the new dinosaur was announced. Before Sciurumimus, only coelurosaurs were known to have fuzz. (What the bristles on Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong actually are is still unclear, but no one calls their filaments “fuzz.”) After Sciurumimus, fuzz has been moved down a branch to a group called the Carnosauria.

We are still left with two possibilities. The fuzz on Sciurumimus could have originated independently. But as paleontologists add fuzz to lineages of dinosaurs only distantly-related to birds, it seems less and less likely that protofeathers evolved from scratch in each and every lineage. It’s looking more and more like feathers were a common, ancestral feature of dinosaurs. In this case, Sciurumimus indicates that simple feathers were an early, common theropod trait that evolved close to the origin of the group. The diminutive dinosaur also fits in the wide gap between coelurosaurs and their very distant ornithischian dinosaurs, bringing us a little closer to the idea that dinofuzz was an early, widely-shared dinosaur feature.

And there’s something else. Pterosaurs – the flying archosaurs with leathery wings stretched over elongated wing fingers – were the closest relatives to the Dinosauria as a whole. They had fuzzy body coverings, too. No one knows for sure, but this might mean that wispy plumage was present in the last common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs, and those simple body coverings were subsequently modified or lost in different lineages as both groups evolved.

We need more fossils to test the idea that dinosaurs started out feathery. Additional fossils preserving fuzz – fluffy baby sauropods, maybe? – would help us understand the spread of feathers and their precursors among dinosaurs. And, even then, we’d still need to find exceptionally-preserved specimens of the earliest dinosaurs to see if they had any kind of filament-like body covering. The trouble is that the high-definition deposits that would even have a chance of preserving feathers are rare. It may be a very long time before we ever know for sure.

Nevertheless, there’s still a possibility that all dinosaur lineages had some kind of bristly or feathery body covering. It’s a hypothesis that needs testing, but not an unreasonable one. Think about this for a moment. Imagine a Stegosaurus with patches of long, stiff filaments covering its body, or a Ceratosaurus with a little splash of brightly-covered fuzz on its already well-decorated head. And I think a huge sauropod – like Apatosaurus – with a partial covering of dinofuzz would look absolutely spectacular. These visions are wholly different than the scaly dinosaurs I grew up with, but they are not so fantastic as to be fiction. We are only just beginning to understand how fuzzy dinosaurs were.

For more on Sciurumimus, see my Nature News article and paleontologist Oliver Rauhut’s blog post about the discovery.

 



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

8 Comments »

  1. “but no one calls their filaments “fuzz.””

    Yes, lots of people do. Just google it. Example:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/03/18/new-fossil-suggests-that-fuzzy-dinosaurs-were-plentiful/

  2. Henrique Niza says:

    At the moment is parsimonious to say feather like structures are homologous to all dinosauria. Whether they also are to the last common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs I believe it’s too early to tell.

  3. Cody Burkett says:

    I may need to paint a fuzzy sauropod….or an especially bristly stegosaur. It would probably go well with the Talos I painted…

    Has anyone found skin impressions from the stegosaur family, come to think of it?

  4. An intriguing idea. One of my all time favorite triceratops illustrations is the bristley beast here: http://fav.me/d4xlwka

    But, haven’t we found fossilized dinosaur skin imprints that show bare, featherless (or “fuzzless”) scales? The mummified Dakota supposedly had even soft tissue such as muscle and organs preserved, but no trace of feathers.

    Modern large mammals, such as elephants, rhinos, and hippos, aren’t covered in the same shaggy coats as smaller mammals, as the amount of body heat an animal generates increases with size. And it’s difficult enough to stay cool on a hot day in the savannah even without a fur coat. I would assume then — that for large dinosaurs, at least (and especially sauropods) — that any kind of fur, fuzz or feathers would be even more of a hinderance.

    Or perhaps there were feathered and unfeathered variation within a genus, depending on climate? It is indeed an exciting concept to think about.

  5. Brian Choo says:

    Outstanding summary of an outstanding discovery as per usual. But when you state “…moved down a branch to a group called the Carnosauria.”, shouldn’t you mean a broader grouping (Tetanurae or at least Orionides?)since megalosaurs are basal to carnosaurs + coelurosaurs?

  6. Actually, if Sciurumimus is a megalosaur as proposed, it moves theropodan protofeathers down from Coelurosauria past the Carnosauria-Coelurosauria node Avetheropoda to the Avetheropoda-Megalosauroidea node (recently named the Orionides, or “hunters”).

  7. Troodon says:

    Just a minor nitpick, here; Sciurumimus was actually a megalosauroid, rather than a carnosaur. This makes the discovery of possible feather-like structures on the Sciurumimus fossil even more significant, because megalosauroids are believed to be less closely-related to birds, than the carnosaurs are.

    Personally, I am of the opinion that the ancestral dinosaur most likely had already evolved very primitive feathers. In fact, as time goes by, and the more dinosaur discoveries are made, the harder it becomes for me to separate ‘non-avian dinosaur’ from ‘bird’!

  8. Stegosaurus. Tyrannosaurus rex. Triceratops. Diplodocus. Carnotaurus. Edmontosaurus. Saltasaurus. Saurolophus. Parasaurolophus. Corythosaurus. Iguanodon.

    These are many of the dinosaur genera that have been found with skin impressions. Skin impressions that show non-overlapping scales. No feathers.

    Not feathers. Scales. You even wrote a blog post featuring one of them. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2012/02/judging-a-dinosaur-by-its-cover/

    Yes, feathers do seem to be quite widespread on the theropod side. But there’s not really a case for the same feature in Ornithiscians. As far as we know, those are just the equivalent of bristles or porcupine quills, which are nothing like feathers. It’s just a different form of body ornamentation that doesn’t readily fossilize, like the dermal spines on certain sauropods.

    If you’re going to write a blog post titled “Did ALL dinosaurs have feathers?” please at least remember to mention these genera and say no, we already know that feathers may have been common in theropods, but they were by no means universal in the Dinosauria.

    I wonder when someone’s going to go completely over the edge and start calling Diplodocus’s dermal spines “protofeathers.”

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us

Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement