
A Dinosaur with a Beak and Feathers Unearthed in China - MrJagil
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/science/dinosaur-mud-dragon.html?
======
yareally
> "It was not a bird, but a dinosaur that was a close relative of birds."

I know it would lead to confusion in the article, but birds are classified as
dinosaurs. However, there are many groups of dinosaurs and each classified by
their evolutionary traits. Birds just happen to be the only group that
survived to the present day. If dinosaurs are a superset of many species,
birds would be a subset of them.

The interesting aspect is they found one that had evolved just enough to have
a beak, but retained many of the characteristics of more primitive dinosaurs.
Many dinosaurs not considered birds also had feathers, so that's not overly
significant alone.

That said, countries like New Zealand had birds that went down a pretty
similar evolutionary path that lived up until 700 or so years ago[1]. New
Zealand is a pretty interesting place evolution wise. It answers the question
of how birds would evolve if not exposed to any other major mammalian
predators for centuries.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa)

~~~
jonchang
While we're clarifying nomenclature, I'd like to point out that "primitive" is
to be avoided, as it may imply that a trait is simpler, inferior, or less
adaptive, perpetuating the "ladder of progress" misconception of evolution.

"Ancestral" is preferred and should always be applied to traits rather than
taxa, e.g., " _Tongtianlong limosus_ retained many ancestral characteristics
of older dinosaurs"

~~~
yareally
Good point. I didn't think about that aspect. I'm only an amateur biologist,
so didn't consider the wording.

Ironically, I would consider a beak more primitive until the engineer in me
screams teeth could be a sign of over engineering--not that I would personally
give up my good (but high maintenance) teeth for a beak. Could probably write
a entire book on "evolutionarily traits and trends for engineers."

~~~
jonchang
Absolutely-it's important to consider the selective environment that a trait
evolved in and evaluate all possible tradeoffs. You can see this in certain
fishes where pharyngeal jaws permit eating hard prey (new food source!) but
also increase the processing time for soft prey (bad if you're competing
against critters that eat faster). Beaks are good for some reasons and teeth
for others.

------
cjensen
I assumed beak evolution was a flight adaptation to reduce weight. Teeth+jaws
enable chewing which is much more effective at extracting energy and nutrients
from food.

Birds have a lot of weight adaptations. Digestion is quick-and-dirty in order
to minimize the time food must be carried around during digestion. Legs are
generally very thin and break easily (one leg broken is very common) in order
to save weight. Even feathers participate -- most of the surface area of the
wing is constructed from feathers rather than flesh in order to save weight.

A Moa, for example, is similar-sized but has no teeth because it evolved from
lighter birds. Why would a large dinosaur evolve a beak and lose the
efficiency of teeth?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Triceratops had a beak! It was for carving out pieces of fronds/palms etc.
Bakker suggests that flowering plants invented beaked dinosaurs.

~~~
yareally
> "Bakker suggests that flowering plants invented beaked dinosaurs."

I'd say it's quite possible that it's at least one of the factors.
Hummingbirds became experts at reaching nectar in flowering plants and in
turn, many flowers such as trumpet plants evolved down a path that invests
heavily in hummingbirds visiting them.

I have seen some clever orioles circumvent the process of nectar in exchange
for pollen by snipping a hole in the bottom of a trumpet plant flower and
drinking the nectar it wouldn't be able to reach otherwise.

------
benmcnelly
Not paywalled: [http://earthsky.org/earth/chinas-new-feathered-mud-dragon-
di...](http://earthsky.org/earth/chinas-new-feathered-mud-dragon-dino)

------
dalbasal
I guess this is a little tangental, but I've always liked these artist’s
renderings.

~~~
MrJagil
Hand-drawn flora and fauna illustrations are definitely not appreciated enough
these days! One of my favourites is John Lewin:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewin)
And though most people are probably familiar, the Voynich Manuscript is also
very beautiful.

~~~
brassic
And of course Kunstformen der Natur [1]. Even if Haeckel did cheat a bit.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunstformen_der_Natur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunstformen_der_Natur)

~~~
MrJagil
Wonderful!

------
mfoy_
> Tongtianlong limosus — the name means “muddy dragon on the road to heaven”

Did they name it after how they discovered it died? Ha.

Imagine if species were given posthumous names based on how they were wiped
out...

Would Dodos would be "Eaten by sailors on a lonely island"?

~~~
jonchang
> Did they name it after how they discovered it died? Ha.

Actually, yes! From the original manuscript:

Tongtian, Chinese Pinyin, refers to Tongtianyan of Ganzhou, the first grotto
south of the Yangtze River. Tongtian also means the road to heaven, a fitting
epitaph for a deceased dinosaur preserved with outstretched arms. Long,
Chinese Pinyin for dragon. Limosus, Latin for muddy, refers to the holotype
specimen being found in an unusual posture in a mudstone.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> Long, Chinese Pinyin for dragon

It seems worth pointing out that long 龍 / 龙 is the word for a Chinese dragon,
but konglong 恐龙 (character-by-character, "terrible dragon") is the word for
"dinosaur".

------
goofasaurus_rex

      An artist’s rendering depicts 
      the oviraptorosaur, flailing 
      while mired in mud.
    

So... uh... why is it... such a, um... why is this dinosaur so clumsy and
tragic?

Is it supposed to be the Napoleon Dynamite of dinosaurs?

------
marcosscriven
Reminds me very much of the Cassowarys I saw in Australia.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary)

------
theamk
Related comic: [http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dinosaurs](http://www.smbc-
comics.com/comic/dinosaurs)

what's next, eye-stalks?

