Feathered dinosaur remains found

[Mr. Numb3rs]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...inosaur-feathers-color-science-birds-alberta/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...nus-feathers-dinosaur-science-nature-biggest/

A newly discovered giant feathered dinosaur—a distant ****** of Tyrannosaurus rex—sported a fine down coat, making it the largest feathered ****** known to have lived, scientists say.

Paleontologists already knew that some members of the group of dinosaurs to which T. rex belonged, called theropods, were feathered. But most of the known feathered dinos were relatively small.

"It was a question mark whether larger relatives of these small theropods were also feathered," said study team member Corwin Sullivan, a paleontologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. "We simply didn't have data either way, because soft-tissue preservation of any kind is so rare."

Now three tyrannosauroid fossils—one adult and two juveniles—offer clear proof that giant theropods could also be feathered. Their feathers were simple filaments, more like the fuzzy down of a modern baby chick than the stiff plumes of an adult bird.

 

[Red XXX]

Yes, they are called 'birds'

 

[Mr. Numb3rs]

Yes, they are called 'birds'

we got a smartipants here do we?

 

[Red XXX]

we got a smartipants here do we?

Look if you carry on like this there will be only one thing I can do

 

[Mr. Numb3rs]

my picture didnt post

Red XXX[/URL][/B], post: 6606673, member: 55251"]Look if you carry on like this there will be only one thing I can do

:1orglaugh im listening...

 

[Red XXX]

my picture didnt post



:1orglaugh im listening...

Okey dokey ..... vote for me in Miss FreeOnes and if I win, I'll be the first Miss FreeOnes with a BSc Hons degree in Geology, so I can answer all your Earth Sciences questions for you :why:

 

[Mr. Numb3rs]

although i love redheads (and smart ones nonetheless) as much as i love oxygen, ive already promised my vote away :uohs:

 

[gunslingingbird]

Okey dokey ..... vote for me in Miss FreeOnes and if I win, I'll be the first Miss FreeOnes with a BSc Hons degree in Geology, so I can answer all your Earth Sciences questions for you :why:

Here's one: why is a [NOBABE]blue diamond[/NOBABE] still considered a diamond instead of a sapphire, or a red diamond a diamond instead of a ruby? Is it the stone's chemical composition that determines that? What would cause the difference in hue? Is a colored diamond less pure than a colorless one?

 

[Red XXX]

Here's one: why is a [NOBABE]blue diamond[/NOBABE] still considered a diamond instead of a sapphire, or a red diamond a diamond instead of a ruby? Is it the stone's chemical composition that determines that? What would cause the difference in hue? Is a colored diamond less pure than a colorless one?

I'll give you the short answer as the long answer will be a book and a half! A diamond is a diamond and a sapphire is a sapphire - they are two completely different minerals with two completely different chemical compositions. Their hardnesses are different, their crystal structures and habitats are different and they are formed in two completely different ways. The problem with catagorising diamonds is that there are two different ways of looking at them - the geological/mineralogical way or the gemological way and that's all to do with value! Rubies are different again, but I'll gladly accept any of the three - I'm not fussy! :goodpost:

 

[Red XXX]

although i love redheads (and smart ones nonetheless) as much as i love oxygen, ive already promised my vote away :uohs:

All of them, you have 10 votes a day - I think .......

 

[Mr. Numb3rs]

Red XXX[/URL][/B], post: 6608752, member: 55251"]All of them, you have 10 votes a day - I think .......

really?! then, ok i have to find out more about this whole voting thing

 

[Red XXX]

really?! then, ok i have to find out more about this whole voting thing

It's nearly as complicated as the chemical composition of Diamonds, ask Petra she's the one in charge

 

[loma]

funny and smart. I vote for you !

 

[Red XXX]

funny and smart. I vote for you !

Not that smart, I can understand geology but not the Miss FreeOnes voting system and welcome to the mad house that is FreeOnes!

 

[joilover]

Hasn't this already been called out as a hoax? Wasn't Nat Geo sued for this? Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

 

[Mr. Numb3rs]

Hasn't this already been called out as a hoax? Wasn't Nat Geo sued for this? Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

i wouldnt like to do anything in brooklyn

Okey dokey ..... vote for me in Miss FreeOnes and if I win, I'll be the first Miss FreeOnes with a BSc Hons degree in Geology, so I can answer all your Earth Sciences questions for you :why:

done.

 

[D-rock]

I like how the "velociraptors" in Jurassic Park (although they aren't really velociraptors, those were something else) were really feathered and not how they appeared in the movie. A lot more dinosaurs than people think had feathers.

 

[Mr. Numb3rs]

I like how the "velociraptors" in Jurassic Park (although they aren't really velociraptors, those were something else) were really feathered and not how they appeared in the movie. A lot more dinosaurs than people think had feathers.

theres a lot more that scientists dont know than they do know. not to put them down, its just that theres hundreds of millions of years that for the most part, are speculatory. the greeks thought that the skulls of mammoths were actually cyclops

 

[joilover]

A handful of dinosaurs were just archaeologists or paleontologists just slapping different bits and pieces together to get their names published and what have you.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

I like how the "velociraptors" in Jurassic Park (although they aren't really velociraptors, those were something else) were really feathered and not how they appeared in the movie. A lot more dinosaurs than people think had feathers.

They added feathers to the raptors in the third movie. Besides, do you really think that movie would have been as awesome if it starred giant chickens?