Kulindadromeus was a basal neornithischian dinosaur from the middle to late Jurassic of Russia. Its several specimens exhibit beautifully-preserved feather-like integument, indicating that in life, this animal was covered in several types of shaggy, filamentous feathers, including a branching type not unlike the stage 3 feathers known from theropods. This beautiful little animal was a meter-and-a-half long bipedal runner that was probably on the menu of other, larger feathered dinosaurs.
Kulindadromeus is important to our understanding of the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs because it's the clearest evidence we have yet that feather-like structures in non-theropod archosaurs are most probably homologous to those found in theropods, including birds, and that this means the origin of feathers may have been much further back in deep time than previously thought.
Along with Zanabazar and the standoff between Archaeopteryx and Aurornis, this illustration was recently published in the 7 December 2014 issue of Nature.
Gouache on artboard, approximately 8" by 12". Original is for sale on my Etsy shop!
It looks adorable and I love how you've depicted it.
As I already said: Very floofey and cute and nice to see an Ornithischian from you!
On an interesting sidenote there were actually two teams working at Kulinda Valley. Their descriptions of Kulindadromeus' filaments aren't consistent with each other.
Anyway, this is another lovely drawing from you.
Also, denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Science is about questioning data, not appealing to authority. Questioning data is not denial. It's SCIENCE.
Also "agenda"? He's not some scaly-dino fanboy. He provides some numerous credible sources. Also on his "T. Rex-was-scaly" thing he doesn't even use the "It's-big-so-it would-overheat" argument (Again I don't agree with him there).
Scroll down to the relevent discussion on T. Rex. It's pretty interesting even though I don't agree with him. reptilis.net/2012/07/23/feathe… Look thoroughly on someone's webpage before you make judgements.
Why shouldn't I be skeptical? Godefroit et al. didn't provide strong evidence for homology.
Perhaps its time to expand or redefine our definition of feathers, then?
Since feathers originated in Dinosauria and we are still trying to understand the whole evolutive process with new findings like these, I think there's room for a bit of flexibility. And if those are not to be called feathers I dont know what else they could be. Certainly not anything close to pterosaurian fur.
Developing a unique type of filament actually isn't hard from an evolutionary perspective. Plants and insects have done it.
Furthermore I think as of now, the evidence shows that feathers emerged in Coelurosauria or a close relative of that group.
I am planning on making a diagram about the integument of Ornithodira that shows the known type of integument of certain clades and their placement on the family tree.