Stunning feathered dinosaur fossil

 Wpf Media-Live Photos 000 558 Custom New-Species-Feathered-Dinosaur-Hints-Widespread-Feathers 55896 744X417

This gorgeous fossil is a 150-million-year-old squirrel-tailed, feathered dinosaur, named Sciurumimus albersdoerferi. Oliver Rauhut of the Bavarian State Collections of Palaeontology and Geology says, "I was overwhelmed when I first saw it. Even apart from the preservation of feathers, this is certainly one of the most beautiful dinosaur fossils ever found." From National Geographic:

Previously, paleontologists have found feathers only on coelurosaurs—birdlike dinosaurs that evolved later than so-called megalosaurs such as Sciurumimus.

Because Sciurumimus is not closely related to coelurosaurs, the new fossil suggests feathered dinosaurs were the norm, not the exception, Rauhut said.

"Probably all dinosaurs were feathered," he added, "and we should say good bye to the familiar image of the overgrown lizards."

""Beautiful" Squirrel-Tail Dinosaur Fossil Upends Feather Theory"


  1. Well, Jurassic Park can now hardly be called accurate anymore. Time for a Special Edition and get it fixed!

    1. Great, now I’m seeing the velociraptor scenes redone at the correct scale…  and with turkey calls.

      1. It’s been a long time since I read any of Crichton’s books, but weren’t they supposed to be Deinonychus antirrhopus instead of Velociraptor mongoliensis?  About belly-high against average adult humans.

  2. Hmm makes me wonder what other completely accepted scientific theories might be wrong?
    Science is not always right!!!! Theories evolve too!

      1. I agree, I know this about science. I am being facetious here.

        Therefore, the debate can never be over. Right?

        1. What makes you think dinosaurs not having feathers was ever a “completely accepted scientific theory”. We’ve been finding feathers on dinosaurs for 30 years now, and it’s always been debated what they looked like. 

    1. Yeah, science has this bad habit of formulating theories based on facts, and then re-formulate them when more facts emerge. Total bunch of flip-floppers, dem scientists.

      The religious view is undoubtedly superior and more consistent: take a random book, then assume everything in it is literally true, discarding all “facts”. Should new “facts” emerge, who cares?

      1. That’s not the religious view. That’s close to the religious fundamentalist view, except that they ignore the parts they don’t like and/or come up with metaphorical interpretations of the parts they don’t like.

        A lot of [self-described] Christian fundamentalists insist that everyone should be hetero, everyone should marry, and everyone who can bear children should have as many children as possible. A lot of [self-described] Christian fundamentalists also assert that everyone is either male or female and this always accords with the doctor’s guess at birth. They must need paradox-absorbing crumple zones if they ever read Matthew. or any of the gospels. or Acts.

        1. Yeah, I know, there are good religious people (I married one, for my sins) like there are bad religious people. I was just trolling the little troll.

    2.  Science is never “right.”  It is always suspect.  No one “believes” in science or had “faith” in it’s study.  A theory is the best available explanation for a set of related facts.  If you submit better facts, you may change the peer consensus.

      ps – The are no exclamation points in science.

    1. Probably because people cut the fossils from the rock and spend thousands of hours picking away at the rock to reveal the fossil inside. You see beveled edges around the bones because they were careful to make it look good. 

      1. So awesome thanks for the link – at first I was looking at the pic above and didn’t see anything resembling feathers but you can clearly see filaments and what looks like spar remnants in the pics taken under UV light.

  3. The facial features/structure – the eye in particular – are especially breathtaking. What an image.

  4. I knew there had to be a reason Big Bird scared the shit out of me as a kid.. it’s a fucking T-Rex!

  5. That’s gorgeous! I’d love a high-quality wallpaper version, but I can’t find one on the NG story…

    1. No, you can tell from checking the teeth, the temporal fenestrae, the antorbital fenestra, the sclerotic ring, the hips, the ankle joints, and counting the fingers and toes. Also from the feathers, which are so far uniquely dinosaurian. [/pedantic]

  6. I’m not sure that you can fit one image of dinosaurs after all they where around for a few hundred million years who says that in all that time they only looked one way,  I think they might have existed in lots of different forms over time from the ones we imagine to the feathered ones as well.

  7. Running from giant chickens seems somehow less romantic than giant lizards… Just how close are reptiles and birds on the tree of life anyway?

  8. I can’t wait until we discover dinosaur fossils with the remnants of laser beams on their heads. 

Comments are closed.