Do we know for sure if any of the early dinosauriforms had feathers, or fuzz, or what ever... pelage? I like Silesaurus/Asilisaurus and I'm seeing lots of pictures with them with and without feathers / Did you study art or biology at uni?
We don't know pretty much anything _for sure_ concerning dinosauriform integument at this point, but new discoveries (e. g. Kulindadromeus, etc.) seem to be strengthening the idea of "fuzz" as the basal (that means it could have been secondarily lost in some groups - that, and possibly preservational artifacts, would explain the scaly skin impressions found in hadrosaurs, Carnotaurus, sauropods, Concavenator, some large tyrannosaurids, etc.) integument for all dinosaurs (assuming homology between ornithischian fuzz/quills and coelurosaur fuzz/feathers), dinosauriforms or even avemetatarsalians/ornithodirans (assuming homology between dinosaur fuzz and pterosaur pycnofibers).
Thanks for replying to my question like some sort of paleo white knight! I don't have a big (read:any) background in science to back my general desire to learn about animals. The point being is that what you wrote when way over my head the first few times I read it. But I think what you're saying is that we don't know for sure weather early dinosauriforms had any kind integument (thanks for the new word) but recent discoveries such as Kulindadromeus prove that some dinosauriforms were "fuzzy." Now the question is do we assume dino-fuzz a prolific attribute and that the scaly dinosaurs to come after were ones that shed their fuzz, or was it that dino-fuzz was unique to the few species, like kulindadromeus, that we discovered who had it. Am I close to the money?
Lol, sorry for the unnecessary jargon - species like Asilisaurus or names like "dinosauriform" aren't precisely common knowledge words so I assumed that you had some paleo-background because you mentioned them (BTW technically "pelage" should only apply to mammals since it stems from "pilus"=hair... but plumage="plume/feather" may not be correct either; integument="covering" is a better word ). Yes, that's like the paleo million-dollar question nowadays (dinosaur million-dollar question actually, since paleontology deals with everything from the origin of life to human evolution), and both hypotheses have their detractors and supporters. On teh internetz it seems like people supporting the "fuzz/feathers(?) as a basal trait for all avemetatarsalians" are the "liberals", opposed to the "conservatives" that support the "feathers are a coelurosaur feature only, and neither ornithischian quills nor pterosaurpycnofibers are homologous to true feathers, but rather unique, derived traits". I could go on and list the evidence often cited for both hyphotheses, but I'm in risk of being more obnoxious than informative (and honestly the real answer is a big "we don't know").
Excellent balance between the details and clarity of the reconstruction If I would have edited one thing, I'd place the foreground animal's head slightly higher, so it's not in direct line with the other's back.