That has to be one of my favorite experiments I've heard of in science It sounds so insane and yet it makes perfect sense for what they're trying to do
I was literally watching the Pteranodon correction episode today and heard "we may not have to differentiate between dinosaur fluff and pterosaur fuzz for much longer, but we're doing a synapisode on that so I won't go deeper into it" and thought, gee I wonder when that's coming out. Psychic paleo nerds, everyone
The funniest part of this to me is that this means that stuffy toys are more anatomically accurate than the hard plastic toys that we always assumed were more accurate. So now you have to start including stuffies in your videos. Also, fluffy and rounded ancient animals are suddenly a whole lot less "alien" than the taut skin stretched over skeletons that we used to see.
That I live in a time when we can say (or nearly say) that pterosaurs had feathers is indescribably AWESOME! I've been obsessed with pterosaurs for...ever...and have been excitedly following the pycnofiber - not feather - maybe feather mind-shift. So Cool! Thanks, you've made my day, my week, my existence!
The evident hairiness of pterosaurs led British naturalist Edwin Newman to publish a reconstruction of them as "marsupial bats". That was in 1843, ten years before the Crystal Palace dinosaurs.
honestly as much as our recent times have been tumultuous and exhausting, i'm still happy we get to live in this time period where we get to know so much about dinosaurs and pterosaurs and still keep finding more and more as our technology advances. it's so cool getting to see our understanding of the ancient world grow a little bit more every year :)
I will now repeat myself. The archosauroform Erythrosuchus showed evidence of an endothermic metabolism. The basal condition for archosaurs was most likely warm and fuzzy.
@@firytwig I may be wrong, but weren't there some older publications that suggested filamentous integument was the necessary step between "having a high metabolism" and true endothermy, since it was required for animals below a certain size to properly thermoregulate? Genuine question, I could be misremembering something else
There are so many marvelous analytical processes that we have available today to build a much better picture of what used to walk (and fly) the earth so long ago. Paleontology has really evolved past a bunch of people finding rocks and being like "Wow, that's neat, bet the spike went on the nose."
Given that pterosaurs seemed to have feathers right out of the gate, and it's likely the first dinosaurs had them, then a common fluffy ancestor must've been running around in the Permian somewhere. I like the idea that fuzz of some sort was much closer to the norm than the exception for archosaurs during the Mesozoic. Though, I guess it's that way now, since the only archosaurs left are avian dinosaurs and crocodilians.
If you like our stuff, and would like to help us keep making it, please consider chipping in over at patreon.com/YDAW Or by taking a look at our shops: yourdinosaursarewrong.com www.etsy.com/shop/YDAWtheShop Or by buying Steven a coffee at: ko-fi.com/ydawtheshow All proceeds go back into making the videos you see here!
Great overview! As it is usual from you. I love how our ancient integumentary evidence and understanding grows. A video about theories about mammal hair would be also cool, and you have already talked about Synapsida. And Pterosauria of course.
Yeah, I'm actually curious if there's more evidence for more Proto-mammals having some form of fibrous coating now - like, is it exclusive to Cynodonts (mammals and closest relatives), or are there signs of it in all Therapsids? (cynodonts, Gorgonopsids, Dicynodonts) Or perhaps even more crazy... could it be basal enough that ALL of Sphenacodontia has fibrous integument similar to our hairs?? That could mean fuzzy Dimetrodon's! :O That last part is probably not plausible... But it's an exciting thought-experiment that I would love to know if there are more modern speculations about.
It's been proven time and time again that life on earth was started by space penguins. We come from the fluff and to the fluff we will return. Also, nice haircut and beard trim, looking good!
@@patreekotime4578 I did some research on that ages ago and someone used genetics and embryonic development to test it. It seemed not to be the case. I don't remember much since it was ages ago, though. It might warrant more research.
I HAD THAT EXACT CAUDIPTERYX TOY THAT'S ON THE TABLE. Well, not the same exact one, but the same exact model. Not like I sent it in. I remember the last time I saw the one from my childhood it was missing at least one leg...
I love how much of science is basically just intellectual slap fights consisting of "hey your evidence is wrong and stupid" "nuh uh **your** evidence is actually wrong and you're silly for thinking that", but with, y'know, years of expertise and looking at evidence. And most of the general public has no idea about this.
Did you guys hire additional artists? The like, calibre of the animations is so much higher in this video. Not in the "someone else must be doing it because it's good" kind of way, but in the "this feels like it'd take years on a single pair of hands" kind of way.
Truly amazing! I will now imagine pterosaurs completely differently than I had before. I wonder if we should just group the pterosaurs back with the dinosaurs with the defining characteristic of dinos being decent from proto-feathered ancestors? Doesn't change a thing about the organisms but will make the 7 year old correct in calling all my little plastic models "dinosaurs".
Regardless of special characteristics, dinosaurs and pterosaurs are clearly different clades. And we have a perfectly good name for the clade they both share, Ornithodira
I was s thinking the other day how if pterosaurs have these and dinosaur/bird feathers are just highly derived ones, then the common ancestor of the two had them which would mean every dinosaur would have them.
Could Jeholopteras have been nocturnal? Hence why it’s feathers were not as colorful? Or perhaps since it’s a juvenile the feathers only became colorful at sexual maturity?
In past videos you have said that the bone cavities of pterosaurs at least like quetzalcoatlus, are not used in the respiration system and are purely structural. Could you mention where you found this, since I keep reading that bone cavities were part of the respiration system like with birds. 🤔
So they are connected to the respiratory system, that’s kind of how pneumatic spaces HAVE to be, otherwise they fill in. But they aren’t breathing with their arms necessarily.
The conclusion of this video was so vindicating. It really does make you feel insane when people insist on that weird brand of stubbornness where they will fight tooth and nail just to say "Well, you can't say for 100% certain." It's just such a frustrating form of pedantry where they desperately want you to add 15 qualifiers _just in case_ -Now we just evidence of filaments in basal psuedosuchians-
But where are those feather like structures from the crest on all the other earlier pterosaurs with preserved filaments? Also, while I can see basal archosaurs having the capability to develop this structure, perhaps in localized regions of the body, there still all those dinosaur lineages with non filamentous integument. Ancestrally filamentous ornithodirans requries a whole body integument reversal from the primitive saurian condition, to filaments, then back to scutes in all those lineages. That seems a little far fetched to me.
Ancestral ornithodirans likely had both saurian scales and filaments. It was probably more of a “which one took priority”, rather than all fuzz to all scales.
0:59 Hi your dinosaurs are wrong. Can you please talk about the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs or the inaccurate fossil reconstructions like the Magdeburg Unicorn.
I never really been frusturated by my native language. There are so many words that are the same, like hair and bristle being the same word. I could critisize how English is, but atleast they made a word for everything.
To be fair scientific terms are weird in that they change to match the language, but they tend to havw the same idea. Dinosaur names for example often change subtly between languages (unless you’re Mandarin/Cantonese where it changes a LOT). Spinosaurus becomes Spinosaure in French, and Espinosaurio in Spanish, although to my knowledge they don’t always use the “translated” names. Even among the public
Feathers aren't YET the characteristic feature of dinosaurs. I'm all for evidence supporting to the contrary, but as it stands we have three types of integument between the archosaurs, with most of the dinosaurs representing a massive gap. You have the fluff of pterosaurs, which do seem to be feathers. You have the fluff of the coelurosaurs, which are definitely feathers...but then you have the ornithiscian integument, which do not appear to share common traits with the fluff of pterosaurs or coelurosaurs, and isn't even an ubiquitous trait as some basal ornithiscians are without any sort fluff. And then there's the fact that...coelurosaurs are the only feathered saurischians known. Period. Sauropods and non-coelurosaur theropods consistently turn up unruffled if we find any soft tissue at all; it's always scales. Concavenator apparently shook things up with some quill knobs on its arms, but the evidence is so shaky that the idea hasn't really stood up on its own two feet yet, especially with the fact that Concavenator is known to otherwise be scaled along with every other carnosaurian or ceratosaurian for which soft tissue impressions are known. This is why it's such a stubborn point, because the two groups that have these extremely similar structures are so distantly related, while those relatives that bridge the gap have so far consistently turned up evidence to the contrary. It's just a confusing paradox until we can finally find an indisputable non-coelurosaur with feathers.
Well, modern birds have both scutes and feathers. There is absolutely nothing preventing an animal with scales on it's underbelly and legs from having at least tufts of feathers on its head and back. And there is also nothing that says that the samples of skin impressions we do have isnt just preservation bias. Like maybe the environmental factors that happen to preserve skin impressions happen to not work in the presence of fluff that traps air and water and microbes. For instance, skin impressions seem to largely be found with alot of other 3 dimensional preservation, while feathers seem to be found in very flattened fossils. And even if it is found that sauropods definitely did not have feathers, it could still be considered a basal trait that was secondarily lost. Hair is considered to be a mammalian trait, but whales and other fully aquatic mammals have secondarily lost most of thiers... but that doesn't mean that hair isn't a mammalian triat.
All good points! If protofeathers are ancestral, clearly they were lost very early in some groups. But I think you misunderstood me. I meant "characteristic feature" in the old Linnean taxonomic sense, roughly "if you have an animal with feathers, that's in the bird category." Nowadays, if you have an animal with feathers, it might be a coelurosaur, or an ornithischian, or a pterosaur, but it's certainly in the ornithodiran category.
what would this mean if pterosaurs hadn't gone extinct and had kept evolving to the modern day? would they be classified as a different lineage of bird?
They’re obviously distinct enough that we would be able to tell that they aren’t just birds, but I wouldn’t be surprised if even early humans made the connection that they might be related, being egg-laying, fuzzy, flying things.
Given their simple hair-like quality, plus the eggs, beaks, and (presumably) cloacae, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were interpreted as some kind of monotreme at first. Maybe Wagner’s “Gryphi” would persist much longer in scientific literature until someone took another look at them.
The "Hey what's that?" to "It was for display" pipeline
I propose extending the anthropological "it was for ceremonial purposes" to paleontology
"You're wrong and I'll prove it. Bring me a sparrow and a printing press!". I love science 😂
That has to be one of my favorite experiments I've heard of in science
It sounds so insane and yet it makes perfect sense for what they're trying to do
welkom to te hytraulik press tchännel, totäi we are goink to see if krushing dis spärrow vil mäke it look like a tärrosaur!
I was literally watching the Pteranodon correction episode today and heard "we may not have to differentiate between dinosaur fluff and pterosaur fuzz for much longer, but we're doing a synapisode on that so I won't go deeper into it" and thought, gee I wonder when that's coming out.
Psychic paleo nerds, everyone
The funniest part of this to me is that this means that stuffy toys are more anatomically accurate than the hard plastic toys that we always assumed were more accurate. So now you have to start including stuffies in your videos. Also, fluffy and rounded ancient animals are suddenly a whole lot less "alien" than the taut skin stretched over skeletons that we used to see.
That I live in a time when we can say (or nearly say) that pterosaurs had feathers is indescribably AWESOME! I've been obsessed with pterosaurs for...ever...and have been excitedly following the pycnofiber - not feather - maybe feather mind-shift. So Cool! Thanks, you've made my day, my week, my existence!
The evident hairiness of pterosaurs led British naturalist Edwin Newman to publish a reconstruction of them as "marsupial bats". That was in 1843, ten years before the Crystal Palace dinosaurs.
Bertrand looking like a conspiracy theorist is very fitting for the videos theme.
That transition to 12:37 is hillarious.
... AHA!
That transition almost cost me an enchilada this evening, as it was I just needed to change hoodies! 🤣
honestly as much as our recent times have been tumultuous and exhausting, i'm still happy we get to live in this time period where we get to know so much about dinosaurs and pterosaurs and still keep finding more and more as our technology advances. it's so cool getting to see our understanding of the ancient world grow a little bit more every year :)
Oh yay subtitles! Love the extra effort y’all put in
Ha! Joke's on you! I ALREADY hit the like button, and im ALREADY on the Patreon!
Anyway, I really loved this video, i was geekin out the whole time.
Great video. I must say, that this animation at 5:05 is the best at displaying how do feathers form. Thank you for your work.
I will now repeat myself.
The archosauroform Erythrosuchus showed evidence of an endothermic metabolism. The basal condition for archosaurs was most likely warm and fuzzy.
Fuzziness for archosaurs as a whole is a bit more contentious, having a high metabolism doesn’t necessarily require a filamentous coat.
@@firytwigCase in point, argentine tegus have a form of endothermy which appears during the reproductive season
@@firytwig I may be wrong, but weren't there some older publications that suggested filamentous integument was the necessary step between "having a high metabolism" and true endothermy, since it was required for animals below a certain size to properly thermoregulate? Genuine question, I could be misremembering something else
There are so many marvelous analytical processes that we have available today to build a much better picture of what used to walk (and fly) the earth so long ago. Paleontology has really evolved past a bunch of people finding rocks and being like "Wow, that's neat, bet the spike went on the nose."
One of my favorite channels on the website. Love you guys.
brb, making a Featherbeard character for my D&D game
A dwarf with an especially soft, and fluffy beard was my first thought.
"birb,"
Are you going with Aaracokra, Kenku, Owlin, or something else?
Given that pterosaurs seemed to have feathers right out of the gate, and it's likely the first dinosaurs had them, then a common fluffy ancestor must've been running around in the Permian somewhere. I like the idea that fuzz of some sort was much closer to the norm than the exception for archosaurs during the Mesozoic. Though, I guess it's that way now, since the only archosaurs left are avian dinosaurs and crocodilians.
This one's gonna be good for coming back and reference
If you like our stuff, and would like to help us keep making it, please consider chipping in over at patreon.com/YDAW
Or by taking a look at our shops:
yourdinosaursarewrong.com
www.etsy.com/shop/YDAWtheShop
Or by buying Steven a coffee at:
ko-fi.com/ydawtheshow
All proceeds go back into making the videos you see here!
first over hERE
Great overview! As it is usual from you. I love how our ancient integumentary evidence and understanding grows.
A video about theories about mammal hair would be also cool, and you have already talked about Synapsida. And Pterosauria of course.
Yeah, I'm actually curious if there's more evidence for more Proto-mammals having some form of fibrous coating now - like, is it exclusive to Cynodonts (mammals and closest relatives), or are there signs of it in all Therapsids? (cynodonts, Gorgonopsids, Dicynodonts) Or perhaps even more crazy... could it be basal enough that ALL of Sphenacodontia has fibrous integument similar to our hairs?? That could mean fuzzy Dimetrodon's! :O That last part is probably not plausible... But it's an exciting thought-experiment that I would love to know if there are more modern speculations about.
Every upload is a delight
great video as always! i love the way you explore the history of concepts like these, it's very cool!
Very smooth on the segues this episode!
a new YDRW upload, this is so peak and on pterosaur fuzz ( I love these videos )
Thanks for clarification about the bird state! I leave my mental image of scientist fighting to squash a bird by an office xerox lid for another day
new YDAW video dropped? It's gonna be a good day
Damn these reconstructions, stylized as they are, amazing.
It's been proven time and time again that life on earth was started by space penguins.
We come from the fluff and to the fluff we will return.
Also, nice haircut and beard trim, looking good!
Absolutely peak thumbnail
Do more videos! My very sanity depends upon it. Love your stuff guys 💌
Now the real question is if all archosaurs are ancestrally feathered lol. Now that’d be a mind fuck.
give me fluffy Rhynchosaurs
My headcanon is now that crocs lost them due to aquatic lifestyle and that crocodile scutes are actually just modified feathers!
@@patreekotime4578 I did some research on that ages ago and someone used genetics and embryonic development to test it. It seemed not to be the case. I don't remember much since it was ages ago, though. It might warrant more research.
@@Ditidos Ages ago? Im gonna need up to date analysis! 🤣
Awesome video as always, thank you!
You had me at "they are all feathers"! Yes! And we are all fish but that is somewhat unrelated
I enjoy the pronunciation of microscopy like "our friend microscopie :)"
Best thumbnail ever!
I HAD THAT EXACT CAUDIPTERYX TOY THAT'S ON THE TABLE.
Well, not the same exact one, but the same exact model. Not like I sent it in. I remember the last time I saw the one from my childhood it was missing at least one leg...
Awh :(
"In an experiment where they took a songbird, called a siskin, flattened it in a printing press.." 😳 "...it was dead before they flattened it" 😑
They… *squashed* a songbird
in a printing press.
Squashed it. Printing press.
Science is effing rad.
The fact that a dead sparrow was put into a printing press in the name of science goes to show how ridiculous it gets sometimes lmao
We do… funny things in science
I love how much of science is basically just intellectual slap fights consisting of "hey your evidence is wrong and stupid" "nuh uh **your** evidence is actually wrong and you're silly for thinking that", but with, y'know, years of expertise and looking at evidence. And most of the general public has no idea about this.
wow what a great video well researched and beautiful
Eyes and Phalanges to the Like button .
Now this is why I'm here!
Great video :) very informative.
Did you guys hire additional artists? The like, calibre of the animations is so much higher in this video. Not in the "someone else must be doing it because it's good" kind of way, but in the "this feels like it'd take years on a single pair of hands" kind of way.
Nope, still Steven doing it all.
Steven isn’t a sane individual
Truly amazing! I will now imagine pterosaurs completely differently than I had before. I wonder if we should just group the pterosaurs back with the dinosaurs with the defining characteristic of dinos being decent from proto-feathered ancestors? Doesn't change a thing about the organisms but will make the 7 year old correct in calling all my little plastic models "dinosaurs".
Regardless of special characteristics, dinosaurs and pterosaurs are clearly different clades. And we have a perfectly good name for the clade they both share, Ornithodira
MORE YDAW YAY
I love how youtube translates YDAW to YAY again lmao
4:25 you might say that it "took off"
>:(
I was s thinking the other day how if pterosaurs have these and dinosaur/bird feathers are just highly derived ones, then the common ancestor of the two had them which would mean every dinosaur would have them.
Could Jeholopteras have been nocturnal? Hence why it’s feathers were not as colorful? Or perhaps since it’s a juvenile the feathers only became colorful at sexual maturity?
My suspicion about pterosaur “pycnofibers” has finally been vindicated since 2016 😃
I want to call that feathers too. It just makes sense.
Inb4 we find pseudosuchians and other crocodile ancestors with feathers
In past videos you have said that the bone cavities of pterosaurs at least like quetzalcoatlus, are not used in the respiration system and are purely structural. Could you mention where you found this, since I keep reading that bone cavities were part of the respiration system like with birds. 🤔
So they are connected to the respiratory system, that’s kind of how pneumatic spaces HAVE to be, otherwise they fill in. But they aren’t breathing with their arms necessarily.
science is amazing
Bout time!
Imagine if pterosaurs had feathers on their wings for warmth
Then we find a sneaky crocodile with feathers.
The conclusion of this video was so vindicating. It really does make you feel insane when people insist on that weird brand of stubbornness where they will fight tooth and nail just to say "Well, you can't say for 100% certain." It's just such a frustrating form of pedantry where they desperately want you to add 15 qualifiers _just in case_
-Now we just evidence of filaments in basal psuedosuchians-
I’m afraid that my first thought upon mention of Goldfuss was, “Dr. Goldfuss and the Bikini Machine.” I’m sorry.
🪶 for the algorithm.
Aw yeah 🪶
But where are those feather like structures from the crest on all the other earlier pterosaurs with preserved filaments? Also, while I can see basal archosaurs having the capability to develop this structure, perhaps in localized regions of the body, there still all those dinosaur lineages with non filamentous integument. Ancestrally filamentous ornithodirans requries a whole body integument reversal from the primitive saurian condition, to filaments, then back to scutes in all those lineages. That seems a little far fetched to me.
Ancestral ornithodirans likely had both saurian scales and filaments. It was probably more of a “which one took priority”, rather than all fuzz to all scales.
I LOVE BEING EARLY.
0:59 Hi your dinosaurs are wrong. Can you please talk about the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs or the inaccurate fossil reconstructions like the Magdeburg Unicorn.
Have you seen the Iguanadon episode?
Am i the only one who went "wtf" when i saw the early archosauromorph at 3:55 😭
Tanystropheus strikes again!
I never really been frusturated by my native language. There are so many words that are the same, like hair and bristle being the same word. I could critisize how English is, but atleast they made a word for everything.
To be fair scientific terms are weird in that they change to match the language, but they tend to havw the same idea. Dinosaur names for example often change subtly between languages (unless you’re Mandarin/Cantonese where it changes a LOT). Spinosaurus becomes Spinosaure in French, and Espinosaurio in Spanish, although to my knowledge they don’t always use the “translated” names. Even among the public
Feathers aren't YET the characteristic feature of dinosaurs. I'm all for evidence supporting to the contrary, but as it stands we have three types of integument between the archosaurs, with most of the dinosaurs representing a massive gap.
You have the fluff of pterosaurs, which do seem to be feathers. You have the fluff of the coelurosaurs, which are definitely feathers...but then you have the ornithiscian integument, which do not appear to share common traits with the fluff of pterosaurs or coelurosaurs, and isn't even an ubiquitous trait as some basal ornithiscians are without any sort fluff.
And then there's the fact that...coelurosaurs are the only feathered saurischians known. Period. Sauropods and non-coelurosaur theropods consistently turn up unruffled if we find any soft tissue at all; it's always scales. Concavenator apparently shook things up with some quill knobs on its arms, but the evidence is so shaky that the idea hasn't really stood up on its own two feet yet, especially with the fact that Concavenator is known to otherwise be scaled along with every other carnosaurian or ceratosaurian for which soft tissue impressions are known.
This is why it's such a stubborn point, because the two groups that have these extremely similar structures are so distantly related, while those relatives that bridge the gap have so far consistently turned up evidence to the contrary. It's just a confusing paradox until we can finally find an indisputable non-coelurosaur with feathers.
Well, modern birds have both scutes and feathers. There is absolutely nothing preventing an animal with scales on it's underbelly and legs from having at least tufts of feathers on its head and back. And there is also nothing that says that the samples of skin impressions we do have isnt just preservation bias. Like maybe the environmental factors that happen to preserve skin impressions happen to not work in the presence of fluff that traps air and water and microbes. For instance, skin impressions seem to largely be found with alot of other 3 dimensional preservation, while feathers seem to be found in very flattened fossils.
And even if it is found that sauropods definitely did not have feathers, it could still be considered a basal trait that was secondarily lost. Hair is considered to be a mammalian trait, but whales and other fully aquatic mammals have secondarily lost most of thiers... but that doesn't mean that hair isn't a mammalian triat.
All good points! If protofeathers are ancestral, clearly they were lost very early in some groups. But I think you misunderstood me. I meant "characteristic feature" in the old Linnean taxonomic sense, roughly "if you have an animal with feathers, that's in the bird category." Nowadays, if you have an animal with feathers, it might be a coelurosaur, or an ornithischian, or a pterosaur, but it's certainly in the ornithodiran category.
Holy algorithm, it's a comment!
Yay
comment, for engagement!
Yippee!
🙂
Pterosaur reaserchers "It's a display feature"
Spinosaur researchers "first time?"
Algorithm
feathers are more of a philosophical construct you know
I mean… yeah
But that’s all words
what would this mean if pterosaurs hadn't gone extinct and had kept evolving to the modern day? would they be classified as a different lineage of bird?
They’re obviously distinct enough that we would be able to tell that they aren’t just birds, but I wouldn’t be surprised if even early humans made the connection that they might be related, being egg-laying, fuzzy, flying things.
Given their simple hair-like quality, plus the eggs, beaks, and (presumably) cloacae, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were interpreted as some kind of monotreme at first. Maybe Wagner’s “Gryphi” would persist much longer in scientific literature until someone took another look at them.
6th
Those comments are annoying, but having Gaster saying he's that exact number is fitting so it get 6/666th of a pass.
@@victzegopterix2lol