Kem Kems feathered dinosaurs?

[BirdsAreDinosaurs]

Recently I started collecting dinosaur teeth from Morocco and it has completely refueled my childhood fascination with these awesome creatures. I work as an illustrator (amongst other things) and have taken up the idea of making an illustration of the Kem Kem dinosaur fauna. Before I start sketching, I need to know how these creatures looked like. One main thing I need to do is decide what animals I will give feathers. Here are my thoughts.

 

Species I want to include:

 

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus - enormous, probably semi-aquatic animal, so probably no feathers

 

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus - very big animal, probably no feathers but perhaps some for display?

 

Rugops primus (I am aware it is not (yet) officially described from Morocco) - given that Carnotaurus was most probably not feathered, I am going to assume Rugops was also a scaly animal

 

Deltadromeus agilis - I am going to assume it is an noasaurid. No evidence for feathers. I am thinking about including some fluffy, feathered juveniles.

 

Rebbachisaurus garasbae - big sauropod, no feathers

 

An indeterminate dromaeosaur - fully feathered like a bird

 

An indeterminate titanosaur - huge animal without feathers 

 

That's it! Maybe I am slighty too conservative regarding the feathers? Would be great to hear your thoughts.

Edited March 22, 2022 by BirdsAreDinosaurs

[Troodon]

We know so little of these creatures so it hard to say what they looked like.  You cannot be wrong with your interpretation.

 

Rugops is an Abelisaurid.    Since Dromaeosaurids have yet to be described are there just one or more, are they large or small?  What about Thyreophorans we have a small tooth from there and dont forget Ornithopods there is a footprint from one.   One more, dont limit your sauropod vision to just 2 there may be more.

[Kikokuryu]

9 hours ago, BirdsAreDinosaurs said:

Rugops primus (I am aware it is not (yet) officially described from Morocco) - given that Carnotaurus was most probably not feathered, I am going to assume Rugops was also a scaly animal

One of the iffy things about using Carnotaurus for every Abelisaurid skin is that the large feature scales on Carnotaurus could very well be unique to that specific species or Carnotaurinae, perhaps only genera closely related to Carnotaurus. As far as I'm aware of, there isn't a 2nd genus (preferably more basal than Carnotaurus) to make an educated guess via phylogenetic bracketing. Ceratosaurus does have osteoderms, so I suppose you could argue the entire clade of Ceratosaurians might have been primarily scaly, but I recall the larger scales on Carnotaurus was not armored like in popular depictions and was misdiagnosed as having osteoderms/armor.

 

This could be a Tyrannosaurus vs Yutyrannus case where the most derived members were mostly, if not entirely scaly, while the more basal/primitive ones were entirely feathered, even more so than modern birds. The issues is that none of the basal groups of theropods have ever been found with feathers. There was I think a questionable interpretation with Dilophosaurus or something similar maybe having feathers via a sitting impression. But I don't think we know for sure if feathers, ornithischian filaments, and pycnofibers were homologous yet.

 

Noasaurids like Deltadromaeus are also Ceratosaurians so they are in a similar predicament with basal Abelisaurids like Rugops.

 

9 hours ago, BirdsAreDinosaurs said:

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus - very big animal, probably no feathers but perhaps some for display?

Carcharodontosaurus is very large, amongst the largest. If we go by assumptions via T. rex, the larger more derived members of an ancestrally feathered group may be less, or almost entirely featherless. I think Concevnator also had the avian foot scales preserved as well which assumes a feathered ancestor is ornithologists are right and that the foot scales are modified feathers as seen in modern birds.

[BirdsAreDinosaurs]

10 hours ago, Troodon said:

We know so little of these creatures so it hard to say what they looked like.  You cannot be wrong with your interpretation.

 

Rugops is an Abelisaurid.    Since Dromaeosaurids have yet to be described are there just one or more, are they large or small?  What about Thyreophorans we have a small tooth from there and dont forget Ornithopods there is a footprint from one.   One more, dont limit your sauropod vision to just 2 there may be more.

Yes, it is all more or less educated guesswork. I guess anyone could be wrong about everything. Still fun to try to find out what seems most likely at this point in time.

 

I have to think about your other suggestions and indeed the Dromaeosaurid(s). It is impossible to know what these animals looked like, so it would be an option to just not include them and stick to the somewhat better known animals. Or I could for example just include the things that are known, like the footprint.

[BirdsAreDinosaurs]

1 hour ago, Kikokuryu said:

One of the iffy things about using Carnotaurus for every Abelisaurid skin is that the large feature scales on Carnotaurus could very well be unique to that specific species or Carnotaurinae, perhaps only genera closely related to Carnotaurus. As far as I'm aware of, there isn't a 2nd genus (preferably more basal than Carnotaurus) to make an educated guess via phylogenetic bracketing. Ceratosaurus does have osteoderms, so I suppose you could argue the entire clade of Ceratosaurians might have been primarily scaly, but I recall the larger scales on Carnotaurus was not armored like in popular depictions and was misdiagnosed as having osteoderms/armor.

 

This could be a Tyrannosaurus vs Yutyrannus case where the most derived members were mostly, if not entirely scaly, while the more basal/primitive ones were entirely feathered, even more so than modern birds. The issues is that none of the basal groups of theropods have ever been found with feathers. There was I think a questionable interpretation with Dilophosaurus or something similar maybe having feathers via a sitting impression. But I don't think we know for sure if feathers, ornithischian filaments, and pycnofibers were homologous yet.

 

Noasaurids like Deltadromaeus are also Ceratosaurians so they are in a similar predicament with basal Abelisaurids like Rugops.

 

Carcharodontosaurus is very large, amongst the largest. If we go by assumptions via T. rex, the larger more derived members of an ancestrally feathered group may be less, or almost entirely featherless. I think Concevnator also had the avian foot scales preserved as well which assumes a feathered ancestor is ornithologists are right and that the foot scales are modified feathers as seen in modern birds.

Thanks! I agree using Carnotaurus as a reference for every Abelisaurid skin might be iffy. Just look at us: pretty naked while our closest relatives are very hairy. But having said that, according to this paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28154-x) there is no evidence whatsoever for feathers in Ceratosaurs. Off course that does not mean they did not have them.

 

Yes, because Carchs are so big and because larger animals don't need the thermal insulation (and actually benefit from naked skin to lose heat), my guess is they did not have feathers. Perhaps the juveniles did have feathers, just like they think that juvenile T. rex might have been feathered.