[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/an/ - Animals & Nature

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Dinosaur thread and discussion.
>>
>>
>>3911856
>>3911858
Wheres the feathers
>>
>>3911899
They have cancer
>>
File: 1627799713421.jpg (1.16 MB, 1500x1000)
1.16 MB
1.16 MB JPG
> real dinosaur
>>
>A T.Rex with feathers wouldn't be scary

Bullshit. You would run like a pussy if an Ostrich or Emu came running at you.
>>
>>3911899
pretty much this.
>>
>>3911856
>>3911858
I fucking love 50s/60s/70s dinosaur interpretations
post moar
>>
>>3911856
>>3911858
Absolute units
>>
>>3911856
>>3911858
fucking chungusaurus
>>
>>3912076
who are you quoting
>>
File: 1628953771080.jpg (1.91 MB, 3662x2204)
1.91 MB
1.91 MB JPG
>>3912076
>zero evidence of t. rex feathers
>no fossilized feathers, no quill knobs in the bones, nothing
>multiple scale impressions from different parts of the body
>"uhuhu, T-rex had feather, cope, stop being a science-denying chud"
>>
Greeting my fellow dinosaurs
>>
>>3911973
I unironically was a vulture sperg when i was a kid, what type of vulture is this one?
>>
>>3912437
You dont know of the biggest vultures around? Condor
>>
>>3912536
thats not a condor retard
>>
File: 1565470051005.jpg (321 KB, 1200x919)
321 KB
321 KB JPG
>>3911856
>ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>I'm walkin 'ere
>>
File: hello.jpg (98 KB, 602x783)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>3911856
>>
File: 13ood3252yx41.jpg (216 KB, 960x621)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
>>
>>3911856
I wanna fuck a dinosaur
>>
>>3911858
>>3911856
RETVRN TU TYRVNT LIZVRD
>>
>>3912431
>closer to birds than to lizards
what the fuck dude
>>
>>3912430
To be a trex featherfag is to live in a constant state of delusion.
>>
>>3911899
They're straight dinosaurs
>>
>>3912430
Wonder if we'll find any more soft tissue impressions on the dueling dinosaurs tyrannosaur. I know it's supposed to be revealed to the public next year but I don't know what we would have learned from it between scientists getting their hands on it and it being made public. Would be nice to get some Dino news that isn't just weird but very thought out speculative studies.
>>
>>3913263
>archosaur family reunions
>>
>>3912278
his strawman
>>
File: 1630541969399.gif (1.61 MB, 372x190)
1.61 MB
1.61 MB GIF
>>
File: hey baby.jpg (82 KB, 1920x1080)
82 KB
82 KB JPG
>>
>>3913979
>Niko, my cousin!
>>
File: nose.jpg (145 KB, 1080x1080)
145 KB
145 KB JPG
>>3913979
>>
File: 1612407659445.webm (2.95 MB, 1280x720)
2.95 MB
2.95 MB WEBM
>>
File: Carnotaurus.webm (2.92 MB, 1280x720)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB WEBM
>>
>>3915701
What's this from? It's really well done.
>>
File: moschops.png (409 KB, 800x577)
409 KB
409 KB PNG
Moschops
>>
>>3915718
https://www.youtube.com/user/johnsonmortimer
>>
>>3915701
that looks like shit and its also inaccurate
>>
>>
I like Acrocanthosaurs.
>>
File: E9zNRwGWUAMHc56.jpg (542 KB, 2949x1108)
542 KB
542 KB JPG
>>
File: Dueling Dinosaurs.jpg (107 KB, 600x402)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
>>3913509
that's my hope, that we get more skin impressions and preserved soft tissue. They'll study this fossil for decades to come.

Of course, featherfags wouldn't care about this. I doubt they even know this fossil exists.
>>
File: sleepytime.jpg (894 KB, 2560x1920)
894 KB
894 KB JPG
>>
>>3915934
FEATHER FAGS BTFO.
>>
File: 1614311897838.webm (2.93 MB, 854x480)
2.93 MB
2.93 MB WEBM
>>
>>
File: 1614314157511.webm (2.54 MB, 854x480)
2.54 MB
2.54 MB WEBM
>>
>>
>>3915718
>>3915840
The duality of m/an/.
>>
>>3915840
I think the adult Carnotaurus design seems pretty good. But basically everything else, most of all the environment they are living in, but also of course the size of the Plesiosaur, the general behavior, and stuff like that.
>>
>>3916989
This design always pissed me off, like "We just stuck some feathers and colors onto a Jurassic Park Tyrannosaur, that's accurate now right?" and didnt bother actually trying to make it look like it should. It's some plastic straws tier surface level lip service.
>>
>>3917269
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8vyD7QyEwo

Here's some animation that actually takes into account
>lips
>sheath of keratin over eyes
>sparse feathering
>territorial behavior
>posturing/avoiding injury during a fight, not a typical hollywood deathmatch
>>
>>3913979
Plovers cleaning crocodile teeth is probably the biggest zoomeme around.
>>
>>3915889
OI!
>>
>>3916989
What are these clips from?
>>
File: 1609194158867.jpg (49 KB, 300x300)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>3917332
>living in the age of the horned, nofeathered rex
>>
>>3911858
that is one girthy motherfucker
>>
>>3912430
everything listed in picrel has been DEBUNKED!!! MY sources claim that your source is bullshit, so sorry bud!! Learn to science better!!!!
>>
>>3915934
Looks more like feather impressions to me though...
>>
>>3917784
Truly deserving the title of king
>>
>>
File: Brontosaurs.jpg (64 KB, 763x506)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: Batuman-brontosaurus.jpg (842 KB, 2000x1735)
842 KB
842 KB JPG
>>
File: Edmonto.jpg (826 KB, 694x900)
826 KB
826 KB JPG
>>
File: Rex.jpg (722 KB, 691x900)
722 KB
722 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>3916926
imagine walking into your house and seeing this fucker there O_o
>>
>>3917804
is... is he giving ME a thumbs up??
>>
>>3911858
>this fat motherfucker is shrinkwrapped according to /an/
>>
>>3915889
pterochad
>>
Behold, a high quality accurately feathered T. rex
>>
>>3912430
Yeah I understand it before the bell paper but now its pretty ridiculous to argue for feathers unless we find some evidence of it.
>>
>>3917890
The likelihood of there being some form of vestigial feathers is pretty high, but that’s be like calling a whale hairy
>>
>>3917893
Apart from treytheexplainer what is the evidence or reasoning behind this? Scales and feathers are not analogous to skin and hair. There is also a bugger time gap between competitive mammal and dinosaurs groups.
>>
>>3917905
Animals tend to hold onto at least some of their ancestral integument. The basal tyrannosaurs had feathers so it’s not unreasonable to think true tyrannosaurids like T. rex would still have something like vestigial follicles after losing their feathers. Also the gap between T. rex and some of the basal species we know had feathers isn’t much bigger than that between a whale and Pakicetus. Either way the presence of a feathery coat is unlikely
>>
>>3917949
>The basal tyrannosaurs had feathers so it’s not unreasonable to think true tyrannosaurids like T. rex would still have something like vestigial follicles after losing their feathers.
This is one of the strongest arguments that 'basal tyrannosaurs' are misclassified.
>>
>>3912430
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If that pic is true then you have a small amount areas that did not preserve soft tissue on a 40+ foot animal. Not a feather fag just tried of people ripping each others throats out because >muh favorite Dinosaur has/does not have feathers,
>>
File: 1619390001071.jpg (1.18 MB, 1920x1920)
1.18 MB
1.18 MB JPG
>>3917839
mvdhj
>>
>>3913406
kek
>>
>>3917538
Japanese documentaries like Amazing Dinoworld.
>>
>>3918009
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Evidence is present though.
Overwhelming statistical evidence that 100% of the animal lacked feathers because the odds of only unfeathered skin being preserved are impossibly small.
>Not a feather fag just tried of people ripping each others throats out
Nobody's throat is getting ripped out.
Scientists just realized the animal didn't have feathers. That's a fact, even if it bothers some people.
>>
>>3918003
Sounds like some David peters shit to me
>>3918052
The scales are a lot like reticula, if not reticula themselves. So the possibility of feathers existing in the same areas as the scales but not being preserved is there. Just as long as T. rex featherfags don’t butcher it, a sparse covering of small shit hardly-even-feather type feathers is still up in the air
>>
File: dinosan.jpg (1.93 MB, 2892x4096)
1.93 MB
1.93 MB JPG
Can I interest you in Japanese Jurassic Park?
https://www.comicbunch.com/manga/bunch/dinosan/
>>
>>3917949
Let's just say Tyrannosaurus had feathering in the upper trunk . What would be the function? The climate they live in is quite warm. Large animals like elephants in Africa has no fur because they would just overheat.

If they lived in colder areas like this
>>3916985
I can accept feathers being selected, similar to how mammoths were wooly
>>
File: carno.jpg (57 KB, 480x297)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>3915701
>>
>>3918087
Scanlation when? I've been waiting since this series was announced.
Looking at the raws though I'm fairly impressed with the dinosaur restorations. As you'd expect when you make it the point of your series, the artist clearly at least did some level of research.
>>
>>3918123
This was the video where I really started to notice how much of a fucking retard Trey was.
>>
>>3916990
Pretty sure that's a pliosaur. Mosas hadn't evolved by time Spino went extinct
>>
>>3918123
Trey is such an uneducated imbecile.
>>
>>3918009
So if what you have here is
>reasonable evidence to assume the animal was not feathered
vs.
>no good reason to assume it was feathered to begin with
Then guess what...the first one wins.
Also, that is not a small area of the animal unfeathered, unless you think it was feathered with a few random postage stamp sized bald spots thrown in. All those areas on the dorsal side of the animal (the MOST likely spot to retain feathers on large ground birds, BTW) are still likely be continuous in life in terms of intigument giving us a pretty good idea that Rexy was NOT, in fact, feathered.
>>
>>3917884
Ah, it's so nice to a non-fully feathered, non-fatass rex again.
>>
>>3918311
It will be nice once we get more skin impressions and can put this debate to rest for a while. Though then we might want to have a discussion about why they lost their fluff (if it's related to North American climate, what about Tarbosaurus / Tyrannosaurus Bataar?) And also perhaps question how smart it is to be restoring large North American dromeosaurs based on microraptor (we see massive differences in feather covering among modern birds so obviously there would be some differences but to what extent). It's sad to think that so many dinosaur genre feel interchangeable when we look at just the skeleton but were probably wildly different looking in life once you add skin and feathers.
Like how many dinosaurs get zero public attention compared to their relatives that would have had some cool soft tissue feature or coloration that would have made them a popular favorite if they were still alive?
>>
>>3918321
it doesnt help that 50% of cool dinosaurs will never get public recognition because they have retarded chinkshit names like "Qianzhousaurus" or "Tsintaosaurus" or "Tuojiangosaurus" or "Chiangliangosaurus"
>>
>Uhhhm sorry sweetie, this featherless patch of skin is from alopecia areata
>Well, THAT T-Rex may have died in a forest fire. All feathers just burned off.
>>
>>3918325
Names really are one of the most important parts of popularity, even ignoring the Chinese names we couldn't possibly pronounce right, we have cases like the JP book yang the name velociraptor on the wrong animal on purpose because it sounded cooler (though I always preferred the name Deinonychus I think it's just one of those really cool sounding names like Baryonyx, etc.)
The fact that the main giant North American Cretaceous predator was given a good name to ensure its immortalized popularity seems more like a stroke of luck than anything. I don't think Manospondylus would have been nearly as popular as Tyrannosaurus even if there the same animal.
>>
>>3916926
>even making the bed was difficult for T Rex
>>
>>3918071
>a sparse covering of small shit hardly-even-feather type feathers is still up in the air
Not to scientists it's not.

We actually have to take math courses so we know the odds of your interpretation being correct are essentially nil.>>3918321
>It will be nice once we get more skin impressions and can put this debate to rest for a while.
Scientists have already put it to rest.
It's only people who don't understand math that think it's not settled.

And how many skin impressions do you need if the first 14 didn't do it for you? For most dinosaurs only one is enough to say with certainty whether it was feathered or not. Why is this dinosaur so special to you?
>>
>>3918026
I should go back and finish this show
I didn't hop back on after the hiatus.
>>
>>3918680
The point is that the current out is "Oh the area we would expect to have feathers happens to be the area of the torso we dont have any skin impressions for". If we get any specimens (Dueling dino rex maybe?) that end up having any skin impressions from that part of the torso, that will end that part of the discussion, and then the only fallback will be "uhh scales left impressions but the feathers decomposed first and didnt leave an impression".
>>
>>3918717
Yeah, the so-called "feathers of the gaps" argument.

As far as science and mathematics is concerned that's laughably unlikely. I mean what are the odds it magically had feathers in the places that weren't preserved? Basically zero chance that happened.
>>
>>3918717
>the feathers decomposed first and didnt leave an impression
Problem with that one is we never assume it to be true in other dinosaurs, so there's no reason to think it's true here. T. rex isn't subject to special scientific rules or treatment.

If a person is going to argue the feathers weren't preserved while the scales were, that would have to apply to hundreds of dinosaurs in thousands of different taphonomic conditions.
>>
>>3918717
>If we get any specimens (Dueling dino rex maybe?) that end up having any skin impressions from that part of the torso, that will end that part of the discussion
Also just for the record, I first learned of the Wyrex skin in 2009 and the Dueling Dinos a year later.

Paleontologists already know what's on the Dueling Dinos. We've known for over a decade now. We just don't care because the first find was enough to settle the question.

And that's just stuff that's in museums. Private collectors have 10 times more rex skin than exists in museums.
>>
>>3918728
It really speaks to the tyrannosaurus' success and range that there's so many fossils of it despite being a giant apex predator. There's like 20 notable specimens, some nearly complete.
>>
>>3918117
>elephants in Africa have no fur
elephants have fur. T. rex probably didn’t have feathers but this isn’t a great reason why
>>3918680
>not to scientists it’s not
Debates like this are never not up in the air for scientists. That’s the point of science, it isn’t put to rest it’s just not supported by direct evidence. We like to pretend we know a lot more about these animals than we actually do
>>
>>3918026
is that a sofubi godzilla?
>>
>>3919020
The amount of tyrannosaurus we dig up really does help give a nice picture of their era. They were the primary large predator and were pretty common. Not some lone solitary monster titan it would be some great event to encounter like I feel it is traditionally portrayed as.
The fact we've found two edmontosaurus mummies despite fossilized mummies bring the rarest of the rare also indicates to me that they had absolutely no shortage of food.
>>
>>3919029
>>elephants in Africa have no fur
>elephants have fur. T. rex probably didn’t have feathers but this isn’t a great reason why
This is not a good faith argument. No one said it was impossible for rex to have the kind of sparse feathering equivalent to hair on elephants, which, let's be clear, have BARELY any hair.
But we both know full well that's not what featherfags mean, or want, when it comes to T. rex. They want fully feathered giant chickens or nothing, because the whole point is to subvert real science, "ruin your childhood", and make coy cutesey statements like
>well...who's to say they WEREN'T covered in feathers? tee-hee!
>>
>>3919108
>no one said it was impossible for rex to have the kind of sparse feathering equivalent to hair on elephants
Exactly this has already been said or implied in this thread several times
>>
>>3915840
you look like shit and you're also a faggot
>>
File: rex1080.jpg (1.04 MB, 1920x1080)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
>>3919193
>>
>>3919029
>Debates like this are never not up in the air for scientists
sure they are.

No scientist has ever claimed in published science that rex had feathers.

Let that sink in.

Scientists have NEVER taken one side of this supposed 'debate'

in fact there is no debate and never was.
>>
File: Elasomosaurus_Face_Clean.png (899 KB, 2280x1455)
899 KB
899 KB PNG
Human: 7 cervical vertebrae
Giraffe: 7 cervical vertebrae
Elasmosaurus:
>>
>>3912431
what an absolute unit
>>
/an/y good dino artbook recommendations?
>>
>>3919280
I think this guy has made probably the coolest accurate T. rex recons, it looks nicer than that purple “most accurate T. rex” that everyone was throwing around a while back
>>
>>3919482
I love how there's a gene that says "add 1 vertebrae" and Elasmosaurus just selected that 20 times.

Or that gene that gives theropods serrated teeth, selected over millions of years until the final product looks like steak knives with square pattern serration.
>>
>>3919833
>it looks nicer than that purple “most accurate T. rex” that everyone was throwing around a while back

Maybe because it looks more well proportioned/gracile? The purple one is chonky, and so is Sue's reconstruction. Which makes me question if it's accurate. I know they based it on her actual ribcage but goddamn she's fat.
>>
>>3919860
Honestly don’t mind Sue’s reconstruction. Might be a bit chunky but still looks appealing. The skeleton mount has fucked gastralia though, but the life like model fixed it from memory. Purple one just looked pretty ugly even if it’s accurate
>>
>>3919476
No scientist has ever claimed in published science that T. rex had lips either even though most who aren’t Carr are of the opinion it likely did based on what we know currently.
>>
>>3919873
>most... are of the opinion
Most don't have an opinion.

Seriously, this is stuff you guys obsess over. Paleontologists for the most part don't give a flying fuck what your favorite dinosaur looked like.

Our interests are far deeper and more esoteric.
>>
>>3919873
Also not a valid comparison since we have no proof that rex had or lacked lips.

We have conclusive proof that it lacked feathers. We actually had that proof long before you guys in the general public began debating the subject.
>>
>>3919890
> Paleontologists for the most part don't give a flying fuck what your favorite dinosaur looked like.
If only palaeontologists didn’t write entire papers about the life appearances of extinct animals this might hold water

>>3919898
See tooth enamel, foramina on skull that suggest not having exposed teeth
>>
>>3919948
>If only palaeontologists didn’t write entire papers about the life appearances of extinct animals this might hold water
99.999% of papers AREN'T about what they looked like.
>foramina on skull that suggest not having exposed teeth
meanwhile other scientists have interpreted those same foramina to mean they DID have exposed teeth.

It's a pretty esoteric discussion, almost nobody is debating it for lack of unequivocal evidence. We have unequivocal evidence of rex not having feathers so nobody is debating that.
>>
File: z.jpg (60 KB, 800x465)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
Do they fight like giraffes? Slamming their necks on each other?
>>
File: Tyrannosaurus.jpg (197 KB, 1180x619)
197 KB
197 KB JPG
There is no proof that Tyrannosaurus had feathers.
There is proof that Tyrannosaurus had scales.
There is NOT proof that Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers.

It certainly wasn't a heavy coat, but depicting T. rex with a light patch of hair like feathers is in no way inaccurate. Of course, neither is a fully scaly T. rex.
As of now, it's simply a matter of preference.
>>
>>3920279
>There is NOT proof that Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers.
sure there is.

mathematically if it had feathers they should have been found somewhere in the 14+ randomly distributed skin samples we have. The odds of it having feathers and them not being preserved in any of the randomly distributed skin samples we have are less than .0001

When something is 99.99% likely, scientists call that proof. It is 99.99% likely Tyrannosaurus had no feathers.
>>
>>3920431
The scales are retroactive though. We have good reason to believe it should be feathered (since it's a coelurosaur, and also we have evidence of heavy feathering in tyrannosaurs). The scales would need to be secondarily developed from a feathery ancestor. So it's more of a "it should have feathers but doesn't" scenario. And since it would have lost them over time due to North American climate or whatever else, it's speculative but not unreasonable to restore at least some North American tyrannosaurs with vestigial sparse fluff in spots. Though unreasonably to restore it as a contrarian fluffy chicken
>>
>>3920452
>we have evidence of heavy feathering in tyrannosaurs
No. The animals you refer to are in Tyrannosauriodea, and are not Tyrannosaurs or even Tyrannosaurids. Tyrannosauriodea is something of a wastebasket taxon, because everyone wants "their" dinosaur to catch some of the Tyrannosaurus limelight. It's entirely possible that the relatedness of these animals is dubious, and even if it isn't, there's no evidence of feathering in any of the animals that are closer related to Tyrannosaurus than these chronologically and geologically distant animals.
>>
File: skin impressions.jpg (124 KB, 1203x664)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
>>3920431
But it is not 99.99% likely. We have skin impressions, yes, but these are small. We have none from 99% of the animal.
Therefore the odds of it having feathers and not having them preserved is 99%, by your logic. Obviously there are plenty of places where we can say were very unlikely to be feathered, but proof? No. That would be like taking small patches of skin from a whale and saying they're hairless (which they aren't, surprisingly).

Unless we get a fully preserved Tyrannosaurus, we will never have definitive proof it was scaly. I personally doubt that it had much feathering, if any, but I accept fully that it could have.
>>
>>3920452
>So it's more of a "it should have feathers but doesn't" scenario
Exactly.
The alternative that you and others are ignoring is the most likely one:
It's not descended from feathered coelurosaurs or tyrannosauroids. Those are either sister taxa that evolved feathers after splitting or not related at all.
>>3920509
Say the animal is half feathered.
What are the odds that a random sample wouldn't have feathers?
50%, right?
What are the odds that 2 random samples wouldn't have feathers?
25%, right?
What are the odds that 3 random samples wouldn't have feathers?
12.5%, right?
What are the odds that 4 random samples wouldn't have feathers?
6.25%, right?
5 random samples no feathers...
3%
6 random samples...
1.5%
7 random samples...
.0.75%

do you see where this is going?
what are the odds the animal is half feathered and 14 random samples don't have feathers? How about 23 samples?

essentially zero. There's essentially zero chance T. rex had feathers.
>>
>>3920462
So you're suggesting that Proceratosauridae is less indicative of Tyrannosaurs than it is given credit for? Only issue I have is that Dilong seems to be placed closer to the Tyrannosaurs.
I'm hardly an expert on how Tyrannosaurs spread out geographically. I know they started in china, migrated to North America and got very large after the Carnosaurs went extinct. But I don't understand some things like what Tarbosaurus, which is apparently close enough to Tyrannosaurus to be almost considered a species of that, is doing back in Asia 2 million years before Tyrannosaurus Rex existed.
>>
>>3917813
love these lil niggas
>>
File: 1625731612674.jpg (811 KB, 1990x2416)
811 KB
811 KB JPG
>>3919852
>>
File: legday.jpg (259 KB, 933x1000)
259 KB
259 KB JPG
Featherfags btfo, the real question that remains: beefy-rex or lean-rex?
>>
>>3920708
I think that there's still work to be done on the matter. Certainly there are discrepancies that raise my eyebrow.

There are plenty of interchanges between Laramidia and Manchuria/Siberia through many routes, between 120 mya and 75 mya, and obviously T.rex was hardly the first giant tyrannosaurid, but there are large animals not fully described from Asia and North America (Ojo Alamo formation Tyrannosaurid teeth, for example) that are probably in some way ancestral or at least related to the ancestors of T.rex and T.batar, the problem is that there are large scale discontinuities in the geologic record that probably would have borne the definitive material in building the Tyrannosaur family tree, so it's hard to say definitively which side of the world the giant forms first arose, or if taxons should be retained as sister taxons due to seperate lineages following similar evolutionary paths, or if they should share genera because they were the result of more recent interchanges, IMO, sister taxons are preferred, as we can't say definitively what the relationship was.
>>
File: sue-03.jpg (821 KB, 2048x1536)
821 KB
821 KB JPG
>>3920830
they start as lean juveniles, then become beefy as a reward later in life
>>
>>3920708
>So you're suggesting that Proceratosauridae is less indicative of Tyrannosaurs than it is given credit for?
Rauhut was nearly laughed out of science for that blunder and a few others.

The only reason it remains is because nobody's suggested a better idea.
>>
Nokbody talking about this nigga?

>Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis

from a piece of jaw it has been decided that this dinosaur was twice the length and five times the weight of T-Rex

I just wish they gave him an easier name
>>
>>3920903
I read a little about a recent article but them and it seems like it was implying they were much bigger than a trex at a certain point of trex'es evolution? I might've misinterpreted it.
>>
>>3920908
It's a very new discovery, for now they think it's probably a carcharodontosaurian, and lived millions of years before the rex
>>
>>3920903
very pretty transverse sulcus. Otherwise a bit boring.
>>
>>3914122
>Hey lil mama let me whisper in your ear...
>>
>>3920903
>from a piece of jaw it has been decided that this dinosaur was twice the length and five times the weight of T-Rex
No.
>“The measurement indicates that this individual of Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis was at least 7 m (23 feet) in total body length and over one ton in body mass.”

>“Additional regression analyses using estimates of the maxilla length and maxillary tooth row length measurements indicate it was 7.5-8 m (24.6-26.2 feet) in body length.”
The creature that it was twice as long and 5 times as heavy as was Timurlengia euotica, a tyrannosoid from the same formation that demonstrates an advanced Tyrannosaur style skull and many of the characteristic Tyrannosaur sensory and brain case advantages, but isn't a giant Tyrannosaurid.
>>
This is the ideal T. rex body. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.
>>
>>3917266
That's a mosasaur brah.
>>
>>3916989
Jebus, not only the T-rexes being dummy feathered, but why does the triceratop turn back around to charge again instead of just running away?
>>
>>3917839
>already bent over the bed
Aw yeah. She's inviting me to it.
>>
qrd on why he's a retard?
>>
>>3921269
People still watch his garbage?
>>
>>3921269
He's a gay furry who spouts the most baseless speculative ideas to make dinosaurs seem as goofy and nonsensical as possible and acts like not believing that means you're to attached to Jurassic park. The most egregious for me was when he started going on about how Carnotaurus would have behaved like a fucking bird of paradise.
>>
>>3921259
Looked a lot like it was supposed to be a Liopleurodon to me, of course either way it's way too big.
>>
>>3921346
>>3921259
Liopleurodon are plesiosaurs, pliosaurs specifically
>>
>>3921269
He spends all his time explaining things he doesn't understand. He has no education or background in science. He's not even very smart.

I'm sure he's a great guy/gal but he sucks at explaining.
>>
>>3921278
I use him as a background noise while I am doing things on the computer, I like his voice and how he talks still yeah, he probably does researches for a video but they are mostly superficial or wrong and his videos about dinosaurs are, as they are saying, retarded.
>>
>>3920708
Why did Carnosaurs go extinct?
I found a paper that suggested they were primary sauropod scavengers, with trex developing advanced hunting features due to lack of non saurpod carrion..... seems a bit unbelievable
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304380021002611
>>
>>3921863
I don't buy any of the "X was a primary scavenger" hypotheses put forth for large predators. People forget that even giant sauropods were at most chicken sized at birth (egg oxygenation physical limitations), they almost certainly provided basically no parental care, and that they laid hundreds of eggs at a time. The landscape was typically drowning in juvenile and sub-adult sauropods, and the gigantism we see in Sauropod exploiting theropods is almost certainly to extend the upper size limit of sub-adult sauropods they can exploit.

I think that the replacement of sauropod exploiters likely had lots of causes, but two of the likely most influential are the advanced tyrannosauroids of moderate size pressuring the niches of the subadult carnosaurs and the changing plant biogeography favoring other herbivores over the sauropods.
>>
>>3921863
This paper has been absolutely ripped to shreds by everyone, it makes so many assumptions and gets so much wrong
>>
File: 1597552080706.jpg (184 KB, 1200x600)
184 KB
184 KB JPG
Why isn't there as many fossils of Spinosaurus? You would think something that leaves near water would have a higher chance of being buried under water and then fossilized
>>
>>3922825
A lot got bombed during WW2 also if I remember correctly the area where they were found was Egypt which really does not help with researches.
>>
>>3922876
Fragmentary remains are fairly abundant in the Kem Kem Group of Morocco, but there really isn't a great deal of in-depth research about the fauna despite the commercial market's saturation.
>>
>>3921269
him having a fursona is a great first clue. Start from there and follow the trail
>>
>>3922825
>You would think something that leaves near water would have a higher chance of being buried under water and then fossilized
you would think

maybe it didn't live near water.
>>
>>3923272
that begs the question, what was the paddle-tail for?
>>
>>3916990
Source?
>>
>>3923316
Amazing Dinoworld
>>
>>3912076
>>3912430
The smithonians depiction of fuzzy Rex is p scary desu. Imagine seeing this walk out of some conifers towards you
>>
>>3916989
The idea of recess hunting in packs annoys me more. Something that big and powerful isn’t going to hunt in a pack. It’s like saying male grizzly bears are pack hunters. Raptors being pack hunters I buy at least
>>
>>3923976
la creatura
everytime a museum or expo comes out with a "feathered rex" it looks like an abomination for shock value
>>
File: conway-brontosmash.jpg (3.49 MB, 4096x2276)
3.49 MB
3.49 MB JPG
>>3920246
possibly but Brontosaurus most likely did.. its got unusually reinforced neck vertebrae and little nodules on the underside of the neck that supported some kind of short lumps or spikes.
>>
File: Spino_20210715_141057.jpg (87 KB, 986x466)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>3922825
It has quite a few specimens but all are fragmentary. A arm here a skull here part of the tail there some tall spines over there all usually being from different individuals of different sizes from different formations and locations. There isn't exactly a lack of fossils just a super complete one.
>>3923272
Yet another recent study flipped Spino on it's head just after it got it's paddle tail saying it would have been a slow awkward swimmer with that sail creating a ton of drag and Spino's nostrils being so far up on it's face being a poor position while submerged. They claim Spino was more of a massive stork/grizzly bear keeping to shallow water and wading while having the ability to traverse across water with it's tail. Basically Spinosaurus would have made a very poor aquatic pursuit or ambush predator in practice.
>>
>>3924031
this is really nice art can you post more?
>>
hehe
>>
>>3924221
for me, it's Mamenchisaurus
>>
>>3911856
Did raptors really have feathers? I don't want them to have feathers, I want them too like they're scaled fire breathing demons of the early 19th century.
>>
>>3924285
Some species have quill knobs on their arms, so yes, definitely.
>>
>>3924287
Cringe and faggotpilled, I don't want it like that!
>>
>>3924221
>>
>>3912278
Just some of the general online opinions when this discussion comes up.

I don't care of they had feathers or not.
>>
>>3923995
>Something that big and powerful isn’t going to hunt in a pack
They might if they were hunting as something big powerful and dangerous as themselves...like a Triceratops. Grizzlies don't regularly hunt anything as big and dangerous as they are, they might kill a moose once in a blue moon but moose have killed bears also. Triceratops meanwhile was probably a mainstay of rexy's diet.
>>
>>3924285
It is almost certain that any theropod from the Jurassic or Cretaceous that was smaller than a horse had some sort of integumentary covering at least similar to feathers. However, it is not absolutely 100% empirically positive, and therefore, although highly unlikely, especially the later in the Mesozoic you go, it is entirely possible that some theropods such as the maniraptorans did not have feathers, and speculative restorations of such animals with only scales cannot be definitively claimed to be inaccurate, thereby permitting you to enjoy your unfeathered dinosaurs.
>>
>>3924563
Triceratops was still smaller than tyrannosaurus though, a full on pack isn't gonna secure enough meat on a single kill. Tyrannosaurus being pack hunters doesn't seem plausible.
I could easily see them hunting in pairs, though, some modern predators do this. Either a mated pair or some siblings.
>>
>>3924563
>Triceratops meanwhile was probably a mainstay of rexy's diet.
it was, they analysed a trike fossil and found that it's head had been violently ripped off by what could only be a tyrannosaur
>>
>>3911856
Are there any excellent dinosaur museums near New England? I'd drive as far as Pennsylvania or Quebec.
>>
>>3911856
I like dinosaurs :)
I play with these glow in the dark dinosaurs when I’m sad and lonely (which is very often)
>>
>>3924934
nice, where do you put them?
>>
>>3924935
On my shelf or on my animals enclosures, it adds a nice ambiance at night.
>>
>>3924945
i meant in terms of orifices
>>
>>3924969
:(
>>
File: 1588185920187.png (281 KB, 1008x486)
281 KB
281 KB PNG
>>3924040
>Yet another recent study flipped Spino on it's head just after it got it's paddle tail saying it would have been a slow awkward swimmer with that sail creating a ton of drag and Spino's nostrils being so far up on it's face being a poor position while submerged. They claim Spino was more of a massive stork/grizzly bear keeping to shallow water and wading while having the ability to traverse across water with it's tail. Basically Spinosaurus would have made a very poor aquatic pursuit or ambush predator in practice.

Imagine a swampy/shallows environment staying like that for millions of years, long enough to allow something like Spino to specialize in it (and subsequently go extinct as a result, when the swamps change)
>>
>>3916989
People chimping out about the feathers, not the mammalian roaring.
>>
>>3924285
Reality is often disappointing
>>
>>3924934
Sweet!
>>
>>3924285
Just enjoy herrerasaurus instead of looks way more like a JP raptor than an actual dromeosaur does.
Dromeosaurs (raptors) are more life some kinda giant land eagle.
>>
>>3924645
Triceratops wasnt that much smaller. The size difference is played up a lot in media they're pretty similar in size. You also need to remember that these are available with life cycles and there not always super big and powerful. Tyrannosaurus probably mostly ate young hadrosaurs. Though dueling dinosaurs seems to indicate subadult tyrannosaurus at least fucked with Triceratops sometimes.
>>
File: Size Comparison.jpg (115 KB, 1024x516)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>>3924645
I'm pretty sure Triceratops was generally heavier than T. rex. While they certainly were present in T. rex' diet, I doubt they'd be particularly regular prey, at least not the adults.
>>
File: Duelling Dinosaurs.jpg (21 KB, 960x302)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>3925334
I can't wait till we hear more about Duelling Dinosaurs, such an incredible fossil.
Considering the clearly unfair size difference, I wonder if maybe there were other subadult Tyrannosaurus' present as well, that didn't fossilise (or maybe just didn't die).
>>
>>3925389
>feathers on triceratops tail
fucking feather fags.
>>
>>3925506
Ironically (or not) featherfags even use the exact same reasoning they do on T. rex.
>a much earlier, much more distant relative of Triceratops (Psittacosaurus) had tail quills
>therefore, Triceratops MUST have had tail quills too!
>trust the heckin science, chud!
>>
>>3925554
Scalefags aren't much better with their claim that all crocodilians must have had scales because modern aquatic ones do.
>>
>>3925557
The difference is there's no good reason to doubt all crocodilians were scaled to begin with. Scales are the reptilian/saurospid default.
What are you even saying, that extinct small running land crocs were feathered too now? kek
>>
>>3925558
Feathers are the default for archosaurs.
Reptilian is an outdated concept.
>>
>>3917784
The return of the King.
>>
>>3925559
>Reptilian is an outdated concept.
I agree for anything outside of informal conversation (not that /an/ doesn't more than qualify on that front) which is why I even added the "/sauropsid" disclaimer.
>Feathers are the default for archosaurs.
No, they're not. Unless you're telling me that things like sauropods and pterosaurs and thecodont's/crusotarsans or whatever we're calling them now were all feathered.
Feathers might have been the default for small Theropoda or Coelurisauria, maybe.
>>
>>3918009
I dont care though I was a feather fag until a good bunch of papers showed it wS unlikely rex had feathers. There's plenty variety among dinos and they were around for 160 million years.
>>
File: Reddit.jpg (274 KB, 1073x1418)
274 KB
274 KB JPG
>>3918321
It won't be. People will just insist the young ones had feathers and dropped them in adulthood or feather any possible gaps.
>>
>>3925569
Pterosaurs were feathered. How else were they supposed to fly?
>>
>>3925334
>Tyrannosaurus probably mostly ate young hadrosaurs.
We have 2 known examples of rex eating or trying to kill hadrosaurs. We have at least 10 examples of it eating trikes. The triceratops meme has existed for almost 100 years because we've known for that long that they were it's favorite food.
>>3925382
>I doubt they'd be particularly regular prey, at least not the adults.
Most of the examples of rex tooth marks on triceratops were on adults.
>>3925557
>all crocodilians must have had scales because modern aquatic ones do.
all known fossil crocs had scales. That's hundreds of species, not one with feathers.
>>3925559
>Feathers are the default for archosaurs
This is outdated and incorrect.

current view is that pterosaurs and some dinos evolved feathers independently. Feathers likely evolved in Dinosauria multiple times, including several times in Theropoda alone.
>>
>>3925559
Wrong
>>
>>3925573
considering duelling dinosaurs apparently contains the skin, fossilised organs, etc. of a juvenile t rex, we will find out in 2022
>>
Carno bros….we won

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/first-fossilized-skin-of-a-carnivorous-dino-reveals-carnotaurus-had-scaly-skin-with-no-feathers/
>>
>>3923976
JUST
>>
>>3925725
we've had skin for Carno since the holotype, scaly abelisaurs ain't new
>>
>>3925573
>that pic
>>
>>3925717
>we will find out in 2022
meanwhile paleontologists already knew in 2011.

Don't believe me?
Check the archives of /an/ for dinosaur threads. You'll find me and apparently Trey the Complainer discussing the dueling dinos fossil clear back then. Someone here even emailed larson about the fossil but got no good info. I know what's in it though. Have known for a decade now.
>>
File: 1629295909445.jpg (23 KB, 827x820)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>people still get autistic over theropod lips, especially on larger theropods
>it wouldn't matter if they had lips or not as their head/face would most likely be torn to shit anyways
I get wanting accurate representation or whatever, but what is the point of being this anal about dinosaur lips?
>>
>>3925821
You'll notice all of the discussion here focuses on superficial appearance of the animal.

this is because nobody here knows or cares about their physiology, anatomy, or ecology outside of behavior. And behavior is even more speculative than appearance.

Until a few of you decide to spend 6+ years in college learning something about dinosaurs, you get lips and feathers and assholes.
>>
File: 1605565649155.webm (1.96 MB, 720x1280)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB WEBM
>>3925820
dont care didnt ask plus you willingly interacted with trey the niggnigger
>>
>>3923976
Looks like its from an Iron maiden album
>>
File: hebrew nonsense.jpg (43 KB, 540x282)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>3921269
>Carnotaurus would've behaved like a BoP
What was he using as his source for a claim like that? How do people actually take him seriously?
>>
File: Turok Son of Stone 01.jpg (176 KB, 600x840)
176 KB
176 KB JPG
>>3911856
>>
>>3925825
>you willingly interacted with trey the niggnigger
I didn't know it was him til years later
>>
File: 1605395785667.png (344 KB, 1553x1050)
344 KB
344 KB PNG
>>
>>3925998
Cute. I love crocodile exhibits in zoos and i bet i would also love spinosaurus exhibits if it exists
>>
>>3925619
In fairness though Triceratops skulls are much sturdier and more likely to have anything left to fossilize after a T-Rex encounter. Like, It feels more likely to get a triceratops skull surviving uneaten with bite marks than it does a random bitnog hadrosaur spine. Animals probably just wouldn't have eaten the head and we know the heads fossilized pretty easy.
Of course tyrannosaurus was the only large and medium predator in its ecosystem so of course it would have eaten everything there when it could.
>>
>>3915731
Excuse me sir this is a dinosaur only thread
>>
>>3925619
>Most of the examples of rex tooth marks on triceratops were on adults.
No Anon, I meant adult Triceratops. I don't think T. rex would prey on adult Triceratops very often.
>>
>>3926382
Torosaurus are adult Triceratops.
>>
>>3926386
>he actually believes this
>>
File: 1614617624866.gif (1.5 MB, 250x233)
1.5 MB
1.5 MB GIF
>>3926386
>he thinks jack horner has literally any credence
>>
>>3926386
>>3926387
>>3926402
He and colleagues were right about Dracorex, Stigymoloch, and Nanotyrannus, they did have credibility, when it came to ontogenizing species
>>
>>3926386
>>3926480
Hypacrosaurus, Corythosaurus, Velafrons, Saurolophus, Lambeosaurus, and Magnapaulia are ontogenetic stages
>>
Dinosaurs are satanic lies. Repent your sins. Allahu akbar
>>
>>3926480
None of them are confirmed or even likely. Dracorex and Stygimoloch are almost certainly just ontogenetic stages of Pachycephalosaurus.
Horner is saying that fossils which are small and have neotenic features are different species than their supposed adult forms, and yet Triceratops must be a juvenile Torosaurus despite being larger, having fully developed bones, and a completely different frill of which there are zero transitional fossils.

I'm sure plenty of dinosaurs are incorrectly joined or separated from their true species, but not Triceratops. Their are so, so many fossils of Triceratops and not a single one resembles Torosaurus to any degree.

With his history of deliberately misleading the public for the sake of contrarianism, Horner saying something is of little Paleontological significance. He's like a more qualified Trey, in that way.
>>
>>3926480
is that how horner scored his autistic 19 year old dino wife?
>>
>>3926498
Jack, go back to fucking your groomed gf and stop spouting off shit
>>
>>3926600
I was being ironic but there's a good point to be made about the overzealousness of some paleontologists to separate every single fossil find into a new genus. Not that the predilection towards consolidating the number of taxa is any less zealous, only that it is much, much less common.
>>
>>3926500
inb4 God's universe is greater and older than the Old Testament led us to believe
>>
>>3926636
I got the joke, anon. you're mighty defensive... say, what's your opinion on T rex's hunting habits?
>>
>>3925717
They will still find a way to fit feathers or just ignore the evidence.
>>
>>3925791
Its real and most of the comments were in support and hitting again le ebil homophones who can't accept the overwhelming science that fag dinos were common because supposedly two fag penguins adopted an egg in some Jew York zoo. Though thankfully the only non-troon mod on reddit locked the post and then banned any LGBT shit from the sub.
>>
File: image.jpg (86 KB, 800x600)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>3926722
In spite of the fact that no possible amount of carrion could be produced to feed a single individual tyrannosaur, let alone an entire species that lived for millions of years, and in spite of the fact that fossils indicate predatory characteristics such as stereoscopic vision and fast speed relative to size, and in spite of the fact that fossils have been discovered indicating pack behavior, and in spite of the fact that fossils of prey animals have been discovered with incontrovertible evidence of tyrannosaur predation, I believe that Tyrannosaurus was obviously an obligate scavenger unlike every single other terrestrial vertebrate that ever lived because I'm a contrarian faggot that dislikes popular things.

Also my name is Jack Horner and I'm an atheist pedophile and I got so butthurt at Bob "Based" Bakker being better than I am at everything that I had my jew friend Spielberg put him into his Jurassic Park movie and have him eaten by a T. rex not realizing that this just shows T. rex being a predator instead of a scavenger.
>>
>>3925725
retard
>>
>>3926480
See this might’ve held up if it weren’t for the fact triceratops is as big if not bigger than Torosaurus
>>
>>3926773
What's up with the paleo community, especially dinosaur people? I spend most of my time just studying Cenozoic mammals and that stuff but every time I see anything come out of the Mesozoic side of things it sounds like I'm reading a twitter thread.
>>
>>3926834
>I got so butthurt at Bob "Based" Bakker being better than I am at everything that I had my jew friend Spielberg put him into his Jurassic Park movie and have him eaten by a T. rex not realizing that this just shows T. rex being a predator instead of a scavenger.
kek, bakker even pointed that out to him
>>
>>3927068
dinosaurs are just a common fixation of people with autism
>>
>>3926834
kek, based Jackposter
>>
>>3927068
I don't know, dinosaurs just attract a certain kind of twitter user that has recently been injecting them with a weird sort of political angle wherein if you don't believe all dinosaurs were heckin fluffy chonkers you are anti-science. Also all dinosaurs had lips because it looks cute and is different from what used to be thought. It's like the contrarian Olympics, rather than trying to be as accurate as possible regardless of whether it matches preconceptions. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if eventually the common view swings back around to dinosaurs lacking lips and being mostly scaly, at least for larger animals
>>
>>3926636
I do sort of agree with Carr and to a lesser extent horner that a lot of genera could be merged. Its always funny to me how all these different tyrannosaurids have their own genera except Daspletosaurus which has three species arbitrarily. My only objection is, if you include Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus as a single genus, what happens if a closer relative is found? Does it become a third species, or do you then have to reclassify Tyrannosaurus bataar as Tarbosaurus again? So the idea of including the closest relatives within the same genus has merit but it also has its problems. Plus its hard to tell specific species differences just from fossils.
>>
So, can someone explain why dinosaurs didn't have lips? Most land animals today have them. It stops them from drying out, and even if the theroy that theropods had regenerating teeth is correct, it would still be more effective to loose their teeth while hunting (their purpose) than to constantly loose them due to them drying out. Hell, even some sea creatures have some way of protecting their teeth, so i really don't understand what the rage about lips are about. Or am i missing something?
>>
>>3927265
People like their exposed toothed dinosaurs with a passion apparently even though it’s pretty unlikely, except maybe for Spinosaurus but everyone’s learnt to just accept that fucking monstrosity as a lost cause as far as deciding how it looked
>>
>>3927265
They probably do but trex didn't in Jurassic park. They were traditionally portrayed with lips before then a well. The only reason to doubt is that neither of the two living groups of archosaurs have lips, as one is a specialized aquatic predator and the other has a beak. Paleontologists aren't necessarily biologists and you see them compare rough textures on should to completely unrelated rough textures on crocodiles and come to conclusions based on that.
The only real point of argument here if that some dinosaurs have teeth seemingly too long to be properly cited by lips when the mouth is closed.
I do think the debates kinda silly and stems from the public hearing the word lips and imagining flappy mammal jowls and not reptilian lips.
In the the it comes down to a need for more attention on good Paleoart and not speculative meme paleoart to sell the public on these ideas, that will do more than any paper on the subject will. I'm pretty sure there's some really nice images of lipped Tyrannosaurus in this very thread.
>>
>>3927265
>So, can someone explain why dinosaurs didn't have lips?
They did, just like practically all other animals that exist and which probably ever existed with a few oddball exceptions.
As these guys said >>3927275 >>3927277 , it's mostly just because famous movies following the Dinosaur Renaissance (which invented the concept of shrinkwrapping) have permanently carved themselves into the public consciousness and its insanely difficult to counter and mollify. I mean it's a virtually universally accepted fact that the small birdlike theropods like Velociraptor were covered in feathers, and yet the public absolutely refuses to watch any media with feathered dinosaurs in it unless its a 20 minute long Discovery channel documentary.
>>
>>3927265
Also consider that historically, human beings want spectacle. They do not want simple animals behaving realistically, they want monsters, shocking and terrible in their aspect, to inspire fear and wonder in them, something that can kill them with impunity and malice.
Contrast the reality: a Velociraptor is essentially nothing more than a bipedal coyote. It's traditionally cute but not overly so like a hyper-neotenous puppy, it's just a stray mutt. That doesn't really inspire terror or awe or really much interest at all, anymore than seeing a deer in a forest or a cow in a pasture.
People don't really like that, because it grounds their movie monsters into something tangible instead of mythic and supernatural and unapproachable, and therefore mundane.
>>
>>3927282
>the public absolutely refuses to watch any media with feathered dinosaurs in it unless its a 20 minute long Discovery channel documentary
Has there been any feature length movies with decent quality of production that feature feathered dinosaurs? I can't think of any.

Don't assume the public wouldn't appreciate something that doesn't exist.
>>
>>3927296
There's been almost no noteworthy dinosaur media in general. Jurassic park controls the entirety of dinosaur pop culture.
I'm positive the public would open up to feathered dromeosaurs if they didn't have snarky twitter contrarians only ever comparing them to chickens and pigeons instead of say.... Modern raptors, which are generally considered very cool.
>Americans hate feathered dinosaurs
>The symbol of their country is a feathered dinosaur
>>
>>3927233
You don't have to go to twitter or reddit to see that, we have plenty of faggotry like this right here on /an/.
Add in the "dinosaurs are fake and made by Satan to test our faith!" angle from local 4chan Christfags, who themselves only hold their beliefs as a form of contrarianism.
>>
>>3927289
Your point is taken, but remember that Deinonychus (which is what the JP book raptors were based on) would not have been nearly as harmless or cute, let alone things like Achillobator, Dakotaraptor, Utharaptor, etc.
But part of that all goes back to paleontologists never having their shit together about how these things are named and classified which naturally results in mass confusion among the public. Just look at the debate a few posts up about if we should include Tarbosaurus and Daspletosaurus within Tyrannosaurus, etc. Then add in that not only does the general public pretty much associate "genus" with "species" when it comes to dinos, but apparently a lot of paleontologists do as well given how split many genera are. There aren't too many modern genera that only include one species, yet we get this with dinosaurs all the time.
>>
>>3927360
Exactly this.
Everyone just wants to be special. Twitter and 4chan are very guilty of this. Neither are entirely correct.
>>
>>3927360
Of course, dinos are the most famous and recognisable prehistoric animals so attract the most attention from people who want to attach their own views to them. Notice how creationists rarely care about life before or after dinos because they just don't know about it. And whenever you hear about dinosaurs in human history or still surviving today they look like 1970s dino toys.
>>
>>3927419
I just think we have a problem where, thanks to JW / JP. We're essentially frozen in terms of dinosaurs public image. We'll never unfreeze until something is made that is in par with that franchise, which will likely never happen in this current media industry
>>
>>3927420
>which will likely never happen in this current media industry
This and I hate it.
>>
>>3927265
Well, no other archosaur has lips and there is little to no need or practical function for lips in Dinosaurs. All lipped animals have a specific function for their lips. Mammals use them to suckle and also not expose our pathetic mammal teeth that we only have two sets off. Archosaurs don't need this. Birds have beaks and have lost their teeth altogether. Many dinos had beaks also, but those that didn't likely didn't have or need lips. First crocs don't have lips either, and the argument that lips are needed to protect teeth from decay and weathering is not a good argument because many crocs spend a large time out of water in very arid environments and do just find. However this ignores the most important point that theropods like Tyrannosaurus regularly replaced their teeth. If you are replacing your teeth entirely at least once a year then your need for lips is vastly reduced. Additionally the actual biomechanics of lips on dinosaurs is often overlooked. Artists can portray whatever they like but often they just don't show any teeth and don't leave any space for the teeth either. Just drawing over a very thin membrane of skin makes no sense. Either they had an immobile hard lip like structure on the top jaw and none on the bottom or simply no lips at all and calling that extra oral tissue lips is a bit dubious anyway. Of course further research might show more evidence of lips, but for now Carr and colleagues seem to be correct in concluding Tyrannosaurs at least did not have lips. Just as with feathery T-rex there's a lot of speculation and very little actual hard evidence or research pointing towards the conclusion. It's always a fashion statement to always look for feathers and lips and conclude that any contrary opinion is from JP fanboys.
TLDR we have no evidence of lips and no real reason why they needed them.
>>
>>3927420
Yes that's true which is ironic given that they went to lengths to try and update the dinos from their traditional public image. Even if some depictions were quite inaccurate even for 1993. But today it's horribly outdated.
>>
>>3927432
I'll never understand why JW decided to go with "they're wrong on purpose" instead of updating the designs. It would have been prefect with the narrative of that movie too, where the public had lost interest in dinosaurs as real animals and they have to make a movie monster. Guess they didn't want to take even the slightest risk on their nodtalgiabait film.
I laugh when I see the fucking carnotaurus from that new film. It actually looks pretty good except the oversized it's arms and made them look real weird all for the sake of forcing that fucking retarded pronated hands look I don't think anyone in the audience would have cared was missing.
>>
>>3927435
Because autistic JP fans would rage and filmmakers are lazy fucks. Notice how all historic films hire a bunch of credible historians as advisors and proceed to make some game of thrones-esque garbage with cunts in leather biker gear anyway. Plus it's Jack Horner running the show on JW so probably that fucker still thinks the dinos are accurate. At least he wasn't able to turn rex into scavenger.
>>
>>3927435
Also the worst part is in the next film they are having a flashback scene in the late cretaceous with "feathered" dinosaurs that are supposed to be the accurate versions from which the fake inaccurate modern frog dna hybrids are made from. But of course we have to have a Tyrannosaurus fighting a Giganotosaurus in Maastrictian Larimidia because artists have heard of Giganotosaurus and since Spinosaurus is hated we need another big theropod to kill the Tyrannosaurus.
So now everyone will praise the "accurate dinos" and assume that they are indeed accurate and cycle continues.
>>
>>3927441
>So now everyone will praise the "accurate dinos" and assume that they are indeed accurate and cycle continues.
Yeah but do you think people are really getting their information on dinos from Jurassic Park? It's like learning about irl great white sharks from watching fucking Jaws.
Even if they are...who cares? Let them have their fun. These people aren't negatively impacting the actual fields of paleonotolgy and paleoart in any way. A lot of the actual scientists and artists, on the other hand, actually are.
Just look at the twin bones of contention that come up in all of these threads: scavenger rex and fluffy rex. Neither of them were propagated by normies watching Jurassic Park (and who in fact DON'T want them), they were propagated by people who should know better.
>>
>>3927431
Lips are the default anatomical feature for vertebrate life which specialized creatures evolve away from, not a specialization itself that creatures evolve towards. To claim that dinosaurs must not have lips because birds and alligators don't is as spurious and asinine as to assume all primates must be tailless because humans don't have tails.
>>
>>3927431
It's dangerous to assume an archosaurian standard for lips when there are only 2 specialized groups left (beaked birds and aquatic crocodilians).
Besides don't lizards (which have lips) also replace their teeth? Or at least their pleurodont teeth?
>>
>>3927448
Most people build their knowledge from JP, almost all toys are made based on JP, it trickles down to kids and then the next generation still gets angry that dinosaurs don't look like an old movie.
>>
>>3927450
No it's the null hypothesis based on phylogeny and lack of any evidence of lips. There is no evidence of lips ergo no reason to conclude they had lips. They might have, and upcoming studies may illustrate that they did, but for now lips are not supported and are a speculation.
>>
>>3927448
Yes I think they do, considering most media is based on JP depictions. I honestly don't mind if people want that image, but it's very distorted and the first image people have about anything tends to greatly influence their willingness to change their perception of it later.
>>
>>3927461
These are not people who are actively interested in dinosaurs though, they're just regular movie goers. People who are actively interested in dinosaurs do their own digging (pun not intended) and learn simple dino 101 stuff like, Giga and T. rex didn't actually live in the same time and place after all. This not harming the actual science of dinosaurs.
What IS harming the actual science is if these curious kids do their digging and happen to get their facts from a featherfag or someone like Jack Horner, and then come away thinking that T. rex was actually a fatass scavenger and inept hunter. After all, he's a SCIENTIST, and he would never be wrong or actually mislead people, right?
>>
>>3927462
>There is no evidence of lips ergo no reason to conclude they had lips
Are the perforations for blood vessels in the skulls of some theropods (that just happen to correspond with where lips WOULD be if indeed present...) not considered evidence at least worth looking into?
What studies would convince you of good reason to suspect lips then? Someone finding a mummified dino with preserved lips? That's probably not gonna happen, ever.
>>
>>3927462
I don't see any evidence for lips guess humans don't have lips
>>
>>3927458
Some lizards (geckos and snakes) replace their teeth, can't think of any others off the top of my head
>>
File: Styracosaurus.png (263 KB, 482x247)
263 KB
263 KB PNG
Any thoughts on this?

https://youtu.be/uQJWcrjC_OY
>>
>>3927464
I agree with that as well, and it doesn't really matter because as you say JP fans aren't doing actual paleontology.
>>
>>3927465
Of course its worth looking into which is why as far as I'm aware there is a team that should be publishing on that subject very soon. They might show convincingly that lips are likely. However what annoys me is when Carr or Bell et al publish actual peer reviewed studies showing one conclusion then rampant featherfags say they don't find it convicting and link to a blog post from Mark Witton and Co. I'm not pro or anti-feathers or lips, it's just premature to assume they are present when there's good reason to think they aren't. It might be the case that they are shown to have been present. I just think the argument for lips is pretty weak but also lips carry a lot of ideas. If you argue theropods have had a solid immobile top lip partially covering the teeth that seems reasonable. But more extensive lips seem a stretch. Different people are arguing for different things.
>>
>>3927510
bit over dramtaic and kind of ugly
>>
>>3927484
Not an argument. Humans suckle ergo they have good reason to have lips, and all humans closest relatives have lips. If all other primates lacked lips would it be reasonable to conclude that humans had them purely based on fossil evidence? No.
>>
>>3927465
>Are the perforations for blood vessels in the skulls of some theropods (that just happen to correspond with where lips WOULD be if indeed present...) not considered evidence at least worth looking into?
They're present in ALL theropods and in ALL dinosaurs, including ones that had beaks instead of lips. They're also present in birds and crocodiles which don't have lips.

In fact scales also require blood and nerves, so the maxillary foramina say nothing about whether theropods or any other dinosaurs had lips.
>>
File: 0916211523.jpg (212 KB, 1672x1254)
212 KB
212 KB JPG
>>3927465
>>3927558
Here's what I'm talking about. My alligator skull I use to teach archosaur cranial osteology.

Notice the little holes (foramina) on the upper and lower jaws. (Maxilla, premaxilla, dentary).
Alligators don't have lips, but the scales on their face require blood and nerves.

So the facial foramina on theropods and other dinosaurs aren't evidence of anything. Theropods clearly had either lips or scales or beaks or skin around the edges of their mouths. Or a constantly bleeding, agonizingly painful open sore all over their face. That's possible too. There's just no knowing.
>>
>>3927465
>>3927561
It's also worth noting that humans and other mammals have lips but DON'T have a bunch of foramina all along the jaws for blood vessels and nerves. We only have a couple.

Crocodiles have all those holes because each individual scale has a nerve and blood vessels.
So a lot of anatomists, including myself, take the large number of facial foramina in dinosaurs as evidence they DIDN'T have lips, or if they had lips they were covered in scales. Scales are dry and inflexible though, so they wouldn't serve the purpose that some have suggested they should. I.e. they wouldn't keep the teeth wet. Not that theropods needed wet teeth because they constantly grew new ones and lost old ones.
>>
>>3927536
>what annoys me is when Carr or Bell et al publish actual peer reviewed studies showing one conclusion then rampant featherfags say they don't find it convicting and link to a blog post from Mark Witton and Co.
This is exactly what happened with rex feathers. Proof that the animal lacked feathers was published in 2009. Everyone went ahead and ignored that for years, so the author published it again to get people's attention.

In fact we know that Daspletosaurus either lacked lips, or if it had lips they were scaled and immobile. But people are conveniently ignoring that fact.
>>
>>3927586
Yep, I even got taken in a bit by the feathery rex thing until I dug deeper. The duelling dinos should shed further light on Tyrannosaur integument in the coming years.
>>
>>3927599
>The duelling dinos should shed further light on Tyrannosaur integument in the coming years
They already have. Larson just held off publishing in press so the buyer of the fossil could have that honor if they wanted it.

But he's already published the integument in lectures.
>>
>>3927606
I'll need to check it out, thanks for the info.
>>
>>3927612
Gonna be hard to hunt down, I think his last lecture on that one was almost 10 years ago.

Somebody probably has the notes though.
>>
>>3917840
I-I think so, dude. Go over and talk to him.
>>
File: 1594306297061.jpg (2.66 MB, 4032x3024)
2.66 MB
2.66 MB JPG
Attention all Avemetatarsalian cucks. This is know a Suchian supremacy thread. Post Crocodilians and crocodilian relatives.
>>
>>3927614
Yeah I found one from 2011, I'll watch it later. Will be good to see it once it's on display.
>>
>>3927586
> In fact we know that Daspletosaurus either lacked lips, or if it had lips they were scaled and immobile
The original paper that described tyrannosaur facial integument is pretty unreliable. It likened the texture on the skulls of the Daspletosaurus specimens to that of crocodiles and reasoned that they had scaled faces like crocodiles. Only issue with that is that they didn’t realise crocodiles don’t have scaled faces in the first place, but rather a single large covering of keratin. And on top of that the rough areas of the skull in question were limited to a single area rather than over the entire skull. The entire basis of the paper was because they misunderstood croc integument. So no we really don’t know that daspletosaurus lacked lips at all
>>
>>3917840
no he's gonna jab that shit up your ass
>>
>>3927431
>Well, no other archosaur has lips
Not exactly, birds have what could be considered lips at the corners of their beaks. Not to mention both crocs and birds have pretty unique facial coverings. The teeth of crocodiles are very different to those of theropods. Also the idea that only mammals have lips because they need them is mistaken, Komodo dragons have lips even though they replace teeth constantly and they don’t exactly suckle.

>>3927561
> So the facial foramina on theropods and other dinosaurs aren't evidence of anything
The presence of foramina isn’t evidence, the placement of them is.
> Alligators don't have lips, but the scales on their face require blood and nerves
Crocodiles don’t have scales on the front of their faces in the first place.
>>
okay how big was utahraptor for real I don't think I've ever seen 2 depictions of the same size I've seen them portrayed as anything from a slightly larger deinonychus to like the size of a medium car
>>
t Rex is the best dinosaur because it looks cool
>>
>>3927838
I didn't say only mammals had lips, I said mammals use them for very specific purposes and need them. Theropods don't seem to have had much of a need for them. If Komodo dragons were close relatives of Dinosaurs that would be relevant but they aren't. Again if Crocs or Birds had lips it wouldn't be much of a debate. But clearly Dinosaurs have a proclivity for forming beaks which seems somewhat at odds with the idea of lips being present in general. We will have to see if further research can settle it, but for now no lips is most parsimonious.
>>
>>3927826
I fail to see how that's an issue and it's splitting hairs. Whether it's keratinous skin or scales neither of those are lips.
>>
>>3927855
this guy gets it
>>
>>3927870
It’s an issue because the paper misunderstood crocodile facial integument entirely and that misinterpretation formed the entire basis of the paper. The fact that it’s keratinous skin is pretty fucking significant given that it’s a very specialised trait to crocodilians
>>3927867
Neither birds nor crocodiles make good references because both have specialised face coverings. Komodo dragons are relevant because they have the closest matching foramina patterns and are the best fit regardless of how related they are. They also show that lips are present in animals that replace their teeth constantly and don’t use them for specific purposes other than protecting teeth, meaning it would be a bad idea to just assume dinosaurs didn’t have lips for those reasons
>>
>>3927826
>crocodiles don’t have scaled faces
>>3927838
>crocodiles don’t have scales on the front of their faces in the first place.
>>3927877
>The fact that it’s keratinous skin is pretty fucking significant given that it’s a very specialised trait to crocodilians

kek

Scutes are a type of scale. Just because you've decided scutes aren't scales doesn't mean anyone agrees with you. It just means you're too ignorant to understand scutes are scales. Enjoy your day. Read a book. Dissect a crocodile.
>>
>>3928009
Feathers are a type of scale as well.
>>
>>3927838
>The presence of foramina isn’t evidence, the placement of them is.
agreed.

Mammals have 2 foramina and lips

Crocodiles have hundreds of foramina that correspond to individual scales

Your complaint stems from your misunderstanding of the term "scales."
Nobody has ever accused dinosaurs of having snake or lizard scales. That's not even a point of discussion. It's weird you don't understand that.

Nobody compares theropod integument to varanids because that would imply theropods have lizard scales on their faces. Something which literally nobody thinks is true.

>>3928026
>Feathers are a type of scale as well.
outdated and incorrect. But yes, people used to believe that.
>>
>>3927877
>the paper misunderstood crocodile facial integument entirely and that misinterpretation formed the entire basis of the paper.
no, you failed to understand that "keratinous skin" is scutes. Commonly called scales in english.

When you see scientists that "misunderstood" something so simple you should consider the possibility that YOU MISUNDERSTOOD rather than blaming the dude with the PhD.
>>
>>3928035
Scales and scutes derive from a scale primordia during embryonic development, crocodiles don't have any scale primordia on their craniums. It's just cracked and folded keratanized skin. They aren't homologous structures to the scales on the rest of the crocodile.
>>
>>3928035
>>3928009
> Scutes are a type of scale. Just because you've decided scutes aren't scales doesn't mean anyone agrees with you.
> no, you failed to understand that "keratinous skin" is scutes. Commonly called scales in english.
Scutes are not present on the face, they are the large thick scales on the body. The face is a single large covering of keratin. If you’re gonna try correct someone while saying stuff like read a book at least get it right
>>
>>3928029
> Nobody compares theropod integument to varanids because that would imply theropods have lizard scales on their faces. Something which literally nobody thinks is true.
I think they’re talking about the presence of immobile lips like in varanids, not lizard scales covering the face like in varanids
>>3928009
C’mon anon it’s not that hard, it’s even on Wikipedia
>>
this anti-lip guy is really reaching far and hard to be as contrarian as possible, he reminds me an awful lot of Jack Horner
wasn't Horner involved with that Daspletosaurus paper anyway?
>>
>>3924285
facts don't care about your feelings
>>
*blocks ur path*
>>
>>3928219
>NOOOOO THEY DONT HAVE FEATHERS!!! HE CANT BLOCK MY PATH BECAUSE FEATHERED DINOSAURS DIDNT EXIST!!!!! ONLY A DINOSAUR LIKE THE ONES ON THE TV CAN BLOCK MY PATH!!!
>>
>>3928236
> BECAUSE FEATHERED DINOSAURS DIDNT EXIST!!!!!
That one didn't, no but nice strawman.
The average TV T. rex is actually less inaccurate than that "heckin fluffy boi" in the pic.
>>
>>3928029
> Nobody has ever accused dinosaurs of having snake or lizard scales
> Nobody compares theropod integument to varanids because that would imply theropods have lizard scales on their faces
Nobody mentioned theropods having lizard scales, the reference to Komodo dragons is about them having a similar number and placement of foramina on the skull to theropods and because they have lips despite replacing teeth frequently
>>
>>3928268
your literally just coping right now dude, you have ZERO evidence that trex didn’t have feathers. But we’ll just not talk about that, right?
>>
>>3928284
Kek, you do understand how science works right? You have to prove something exists not that it didn't. We have zero evidence of feathers and abundance of evidence of scales in Tyrannosauridae, which is separated from filament covered basal Tyrannosauroids and Proceratorsauridae by minimum 50 million years.
>>
>>3928204
There's more than one of us by the way. And no we aren't reaching. It doesn't mean its the case that they didn't have lips but the fact people are assuming they did is a pretty big leap and completely reaks of the feathery T-rex situation all over again. But lets see what further studies show. I have no particular affinity for either outcome, and I'll happily accept any study that compellingly indicates lips were present.
>>
>>3924285
For most there isn't any soft tissue known but based on known dromaeosaurs with complex feathers it can be infered that they were covered in feathers. The exact extent and form isn't known for most and likely varied based on size, environment etc. Bit for animals like velociraptor, you are looking at long feathers on the hands and arms like wings, most likely either a tail fan or frond on the tail and then either plumaceous feathers or filaments on the body. The exact extent on the neck and head is unknown and any other soft tissue or keratinous structures are also unknown, it could have had a bear head and neck with lots of weird structures like a turkey for all we know. But bottom line is it was covered in some forms of feathers bit exactly how fluffed up it was isn't certain. There's no single model for feathered dinosaurs.
>>
>>3924563
There's a big between organised pack hunting as wolves do and just generally a bunch of the same predator all chasing the same meal. Pack hunting is a very rare and highly derived behaviour. However you can also have a social group in which individuals go out and hunt or forage for themselves. Pack hunting among dinos is basically a meme at this point but with very little basis. Especially in Dromaeosaurs which seem to have been solitary animals.
>>
>>3924568
I think we need more samples to determine exactly where feathers fall on the tree, but it seems much more likely that smaller animals had more to gain from filament coverings than larger ones. Hence why larger dinosaurs typically are found with scales.
>>
>>3924645
Its possible they teamed up on the fly but it also seems odd for that many Tyrannosaurus to be in close proximity in the first place unless there was something specific drawing them to a location, which is possible due to a gathering of prey animals for example. But even so they likely needed a fairly sizeable territory for each rex.
>>
>>3925004
Either option seems plausible, bottom line is it seems to have disappeared when the wetland environment was swallowed up by the rising seas.
>>
>>3925331
This, though if filaments are ancestral to ornithodira then dinosauromorphs might also have had them. Its interesting whether filaments independently arose later in the dinosaur tree or if they were ancestral and were lost by many lineages.
>>
>>3928294
What are you talking about? I literally have a trex feather dude, it’s right here
>>
>>3925554
Yeah its a bit odd, but there were divot like structures found in some triceratops integument that might have held quills. It's a stretch but at least they aren't pulling it completely out of their ass. I imagine there were a lot of soft tissue structures for display in many dinosaurs that weren't even feathers or scales. But we can't really know that, unfortunately paleoartists have a hard time being clear when they are blindly speculating about something and it quickly becomes a meme that gets taken as fact until an actual paper comes out that disproves it and everyone spergs out and eventually accepts it and moved on to a new pet theory.
>>
>>3927855
fucking based
>>
File: scales.png (113 KB, 327x208)
113 KB
113 KB PNG
>>3928098
>They aren't homologous structures to the scales on the rest of the crocodile.
I never said they were. I said they're called scutes, which we commonly call scales
>>3928107
Just because some scutes have osteoderms doesn't imply that all scutes must have osteoderms.
> it’s even on Wikipedia
kek>>3928277
>the reference to Komodo dragons is about them having a similar number and placement of foramina on the skull to theropods and because they have lips despite replacing teeth frequently
The foramina in varanids aren't for the lips though.
>>
File: scutes.jpg (14 KB, 266x190)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
>>3928098
>Scales and scutes derive from a scale primordia during embryonic development
some do, not all.
>It's just cracked and folded keratanized skin.
yes, this is called scutes or scales.

the T. rex scales are all just cracked and folded keratinized skin.

In fact there are only 2 types of scale known from dinosaurs, both are keratinized skin, and both are types of scute.

The two types are
1. Cracked and folded keratinized skin, such as is found on crocodile faces and Tyranosaurus rex
2. Osteoderms. Which are also covered with cracked and folded keratinized skin.

Crocodile scales and dinosaurs scales are identical in structure and genesis, and are undoubtedly homologous.

You not knowing this doesn't change the facts of the matter.
>>
did adult sauropods actually have any predators in any era?
>>
>>3928549
Doubtful but they had to make it to adulthood first

The biggest they could face would be a T-Rex which is still way smaller and probably wouldn’t go through the effort of picking an adult instead of a sick one or a kid or etc. plus they can whip their tails and you don’t want to be on the end of that

Iirc sauropods evolved long necks to balance out their tails for self defense rather than having to reach high leafs etc. their Heart couldn’t handle pumping blood to their heads very long with their necks at full height
>>
>>3928549
No, this is a myth invented by retards who want bigger spectacle. It's cooler to watch an Allosaurus pack take down a herd of Diplodocus than it is to see that same Allosaurus effortlessly rip the shit out of a pansy Camptosaur that the public doesn't really know or care about.
A pack of Giganotosaurus is not going to win against an Argentinosaurus at anywhere near the required rate of success in order to be a viable hunting strategy in its species, any more than lions make a habit of taking down elephants. Can it be done? Sure, but the rate of attrition is so high and the reward so small as to be utterly impractical as long-term predatory behavior.
Of course this is assuming the maximum-sized predator vs the maximum-sized prey, which is an absurd concept in the first place. There's nothing keeping a Giganotosaur from preying upon Amargasaurs or hypothetical yet undiscovered South American ornithopods which almost certainly existed but which have not reliably entered the fossil record.
>>
File: 12_croco_1.jpg (1.53 MB, 3008x2000)
1.53 MB
1.53 MB JPG
>>3928105
>>3928107
You guys are aiming in the wrong direction. It doesn't actually matter if crocodile scales are called scales.

What you should be concentrating on is WHY the scales around the mouths of crocodiles have individual foramina while the scales on other parts of the face do not.

The short answer is they have tiny sensory hairs around their mouths (Integumentary Sense Organs, or ISO's). Basically crocodile whiskers. These are innervated and vascularized by hundreds of facial foramina around the mouth. This is probably the only point worth arguing in regards to the scales around the mouths of theropods. Lips don't require a bunch of foramina to function.

Whether or not scales are called scales is autistic nit picking and has nothing to do with the argument.
>>
>>3928573
It's also worth pointing out that the cracking and folding of crocodile skin on the face isn't random. Otherwise there wouldn't be a foramen (or several) for each individual scale. Some would have lots and some would have none. This isn't the case. The scales and foramina locations and shapes vary between individuals, but they match up to each other. Each scale has at least one foramen. They are scales rather than randomly wrinkled skin because they grow to match the foramina rather than randomly based on how the skin moves.
>>
>>3928523
> Just because some scutes have osteoderms doesn't imply that all scutes must have osteoderms.
Except they’re not scutes in the first place. Scutes are a very specific type of big thick scale. The keratin on the face is one single large covering.

All scutes are derived from a dermal base, the covering on a crocodile’s face are not scutes. By this logic every single scale on a crocodile’s body would be called scutes, but they’re not. The term scute is reserved for very specific groups of scales, and the face keratin is not one of them. People have literally posted parts of web pages talking about this, how is it so hard to grasp
>>3928531
> The two types are
1. Cracked and folded keratinized skin, such as is found on crocodile faces and Tyranosaurus rex
2. Osteoderms. Which are also covered with cracked and folded keratinized skin.
These are not the two types of scales found in dinosaurs. The small reticula like scales seen in many skin impressions like hadrosaurs and even on the body of T. rex are not osteoderms as they didn’t contain an inner piece of bone and aren’t a single large piece of cracked and folded skin, they are individual small scales.
>>3928573
It has plenty to do with the argument, as the basis for the tyrannosaur facial integument was based on the idea croc faces weren’t one big keratin shield.
>>3928579
The skin doesn’t randomly wrinkle, this is already known. Its all the same piece of keratin. The sections that grow around each foramen grow that way because the foramen are there, not the other way around. There’s a reason hatchling crocs start out with smoother faces than adults
>>
>>3928727
>Scutes are a very specific type of big thick scale
They're not.

It's a generalized term that covers several types of scale including crocodile face scales.

> The small reticula like scales seen in many skin impressions like hadrosaurs and even on the body of T. rex... aren’t a single large piece of cracked and folded skin, they are individual small scales.
you should seriously read more before talking.

this is wrong. You are wrong. You're funny though. I love the stubbornly wrong.
>>
>>3928727
>aren’t a single large piece of cracked and folded skin, they are individual small scales.
They're both.

Just like croc facial scales.

The skin thickens and stiffens. Then it cracks into individual scales, then these scales continue to thicken individually while the cracks don't.

they are both individual scales and also a large piece of skin. This is true of all types of scales, they're all emerging from a single bit of skin. Coming from one piece of skin doesn't magically make them not scales.
>>
>>3928755
>The skin thickens and stiffens. Then it cracks into individual scales, then these scales continue to thicken individually while the cracks don't.
This type of scale is called a scute.
>>
>>3928727
You don't have to take my word for it.

Here's a bit of science on the topic written for children and the uneducated like yourself.

Notice that the crocodile's head scales are called crocodile head scales throughout. At no point in the paper do they say they're not scales because they come from on piece of cracked skin. They don't say they're not scales.

>https://www.scienceintheclassroom.org/research-papers/cracking-armor
>>
File: 1615823782604.png (1.71 MB, 1109x1464)
1.71 MB
1.71 MB PNG
>>3928767
>>3928755
>>3928750
schizo allofag kys
>>
>>3928772
Don't say retarded shit on the internet and people won't correct you
>>
>>3928761
A scute is one of a group of large thick body scales, not a cracked keratin covering on the face.
>>3928767
And yet they still don’t mention them being called scutes at all either. Also the paper you linked goes into detail about how the cracked keratin on the face forms and how it’s different to the scales on the body, including the scutes. It also states that they do not form from scale primordia like all scutes do, it’s using the term scales for the sake of simplicity and because it doesn’t need to make that distinction in this context like it would in reference to making a comparison between crocodilian and dinosaur facial integument
>>3928750
> It's a generalized term that covers several types of scale including crocodile face scales.
Scutes don’t even refer to all the scales on the body, let alone the skin on the face.
>>3928755
>This is true of all types of scales
No it’s not. The scales of lizards, snakes, fish, turtles, and those on the body of crocodilians do not form after thickening, stiffening and then cracking. They form as their own scales from the start.
>>
>>3928802
>it doesn’t need to make that distinction in this context like it would in reference to making a comparison between crocodilian and dinosaur facial integument
There's no need to differentiate because paleontologists all know that the scales on crocodile faces are the same as those on dinosaur skin.

>those scales aren't scutes
the time you spend trying to defend your ego could be better spent learning.

>A scute or scutum (Latin scutum, plural: scuta "shield") is a bony external plate or scale overlaid with horn, as on the shell of a turtle, the skin of crocodilians, and the feet of birds.
>>
>>3928802
>Scutes don’t even refer to all the scales on the body
since scutes are horned scales in the skin whether they have osteoderms or not,

yes.

all crocodile scales are scutes.

all bird scales are also scutes, even though they don't have bone in them.

All dinosaur scales are scutes. Same reason. They exist in the skin and have a keratinous covering with or without bone behind it.

scutes may be large, such as belly scutes on some extinct crocodiles, or they may be small, like the scales on bird legs. It's not the size that makes it a scute. It's the fact that it grows in the skin and doesn't overlap with other scales.
>>
Holy fuck this thread derailed
>crocodiles don’t have scales on their face, it’s cracked skin
arguing over whether or not the keratin on the face of a crocodile should be called scales or not is pointless, we know the “cracked skin” is not the same as any other scales but at that point you’re just arguing over the definition of what is and isn’t a scale.
>crocodiles have scutes on their faces, all crocodile scales are scutes
scutes and scales aren’t just always interchangeable, scutes are specific types of scales that form dermal armour. Not all crocodile scales are scutes, same applies to dinosaurs and birds or anything else with scales.
>the scales on crocodile faces are the same as the scales on dinosaurs
no they aren’t, crocodile scales are very specialised and aren’t comparable to those on dinosaurs. The scales of dinosaurs don’t form from a single layer of keratin that cracks, the scales on a crocodile’s face are relatively immobile and the cracks don’t create individual scales like seen in dinosaurs. If you had that for skin over your entire body you wouldn’t even be able to move well
>there are only 2 types of scale known from dinosaurs
No there aren’t. Osteoderms, non osteoderm scutes, small rounded scales, possibly even sensory scales, etc
>the scales on T. rex’s face were the same as those of a crocodile
we don’t have nearly enough evidence to suggest this yet. The rough texture found on tyrannosaur skulls was only really present in one small area, compared to crocodiles which have their skulls completely covered in it. This has only marginally more evidence for it than T. rex feathers do
>>3928750
>I love the stubbornly wrong
Pot, kettle
>>
>>3928821
>Not all crocodile scales are scutes, same applies to dinosaurs and birds or anything else with scales.
since osteoderms are a type of scute, and keratinous scales in skin are scutes,

YES ALL CROCODILE SCALES ARE SCUTES. ALL BIRD SCALES ARE SCUTES. ALL DINOSAUR SCALES ARE SCUTES.

>>3928821
>If you had that for skin over your entire body you wouldn’t even be able to move well
Not all scutes are the same thickness, size, or shape. Not all scutes are completely inflexible armor. Birds feet are entirely covered in scutes and bend just fine.

Dinosaur skin is made of individual scales, which are scutes, which formed from cracking in keratinous skin just like the scales (scutes) on crocodile faces.

The only alternative considered is that they're feathers that evolved into scales, similar to bird feet, but they'd still be scutes (just like in birds) and they'd still be exactly the same as birds foot scales or crocodile face scales both in how we classified them and how they grew.
>>
>>3928821
>Pot, kettle
2 people being wrong is just that. 2 wrong people.

Facts don't change just because 2 people don't understand them.
>>
>>3928821
>The rough texture found on tyrannosaur skulls was only really present in one small area, compared to crocodiles which have their skulls completely covered in it.
false

croc skulls are mostly smooth and still covered with scales. In fact the presence of ruggose bone has nothing to do with the presence of scales (scutes).
>>
okay but dinosaurs are cool though right?
>>
>>3928823
>keratinous scales in skin are scutes
Not all keratinous scales in skin are scutes. There would be no reason to differentiate between scales and scutes in the first place then. Scutes specifically are the scales that for dermal armour, this isn’t hard to find online.
> Not all scutes are the same thickness, size, or shape. Not all scutes are completely inflexible armor. Birds feet are entirely covered in scutes and bend just fine.
That was in reference to the scales on a crocodile’s face which forms one big solid, rigid slab and not the scutes on the body. Dinosaur skin is most definitely not formed from the cracking of keratinous skin, if it were then we would see evidence of incomplete separation like on the faces of crocodiles which we don’t. Try and find a dinosaur skin impressions that shows incomplete separation, they don’t exist.
>>3928824
Yes that was the point, both are incorrect so one saying they find stubbornly wrong people funny is a pot/kettle situation
>>3928824
>croc skulls are mostly smooth and still covered with scales
Have you ever seen a crocodile skull? They’re some of the roughest skulls of any animal you’ll ever see, pic related
>In fact the presence of ruggose bone has nothing to do with the presence of scales
The presence of rugose bone being associated with croc like scales on the face was the whole point of the study looking at rough textures on tyrannosaur skulls. So yeah, it kinda is related to the presence of scales
>>
>>3928823
>YES ALL CROCODILE SCALES ARE SCUTES
Saltwater crocodiles completely lack postoccipital scutes, but they don’t lack postoccipital scales. How’s that work?
>>
>>3928949
>Not all keratinous scales in skin are scutes.
yes they are. That's the definition of a scute.
>Scutes specifically are the scales that for dermal armour
yes, they're the scales that grow entirely inside skin
> if it were then we would see evidence of incomplete separation like on the faces of crocodiles which we don’t.
You're ignoring bird scutes which don't show incomplete separation, and the rex skin samples which do show it.
>Have you ever seen a crocodile skull?
I have one on my desk right now.
I posted it here >>3927561

Notice the sides of the face aren't ruggose. They're smooth and pierced with hundreds of foramina. Those foramina correspond to individual scales.
>The presence of rugose bone being associated with croc like scales on the face was the whole point of the study looking at rough textures on tyrannosaur skulls. So yeah, it kinda is related to the presence of scales
It's not related to this discussion though.
My claim was that the facial foramina on theropods are good evidence of scales being present. We weren't discussing that study in particular.
>>3928955
>How’s that work?
somebody used 2 different words for the same structure and confused the shit out of you.

Just like itt.
>>
>>3928970
>yes, they're the scales that grow entirely inside skin
dermal armour isn’t necessarily within skin, in crocodiles it’s external
>You're ignoring bird scutes which don't show incomplete separation
That’s because scutes don’t show incomplete separation. Only the scales on a croc’s face show incomplete separation as they’re not derived from scale primordia like all scutes.
>the rex skin samples which do show it
none of the tyrannosaurus scales show incomplete separation. What even makes you think dinosaur scales start out as keratin that cracks over time like a croc’s face? Bird/lizard/snake scales don’t do that, even scutes on the bodies of crocodiles don’t. Literally only the faces of crocodiles do that, so why do you think the body scales of a dinosaur would? That kind of incomplete separation is unique to the faces of crocodiles as far as we know
>They're smooth and pierced with hundreds of foramina. Those foramina correspond to individual scales.
It’s almost like the fact that there’s hundreds of foramina distributed fairly regularly across the face means that groups of then will always be paired with a far fewer number of irregularly patterned scales
>It's not related to this discussion though.
It’s literally what the start of the discussion was about from the moment lips got mentioned, if so you jumped in halfway through without seeing the start of the convo regarding Carr’s paper
>somebody used 2 different words for the same structure and confused the shit out of you.
The postoccipital scutes are four specific scutes present in every single crocodile except the saltwater croc. They’re not using different terms for the same thing, if they were then there wouldn’t be a mention of saltwater crocs not having posoccipital scutes in the first place because they still have normal scales in the same spot
>>
File: scutes and scales.png (507 KB, 930x730)
507 KB
507 KB PNG
>>3928995
>dermal armour isn’t necessarily within skin
It grows in the skin. The skin becomes the scute by stiffening with keratin
> they’re not derived from scale primordia like all scutes.
Most scutes aren't
This is evident because there's no one pattern to how they're distributed, unlike snake and fish and lizard scales
>Literally only the faces of crocodiles do that
every scale on their body that's not an osteoderm does that. And yes, birds do it too. That's why every bird has different scale patterns. Same with crocs.
>It’s almost like the fact that there’s hundreds of foramina distributed fairly regularly across the face means that groups of then will always be paired with a far fewer number of irregularly patterned scales
exactly my point.
> if they were then there wouldn’t be a mention of saltwater crocs not having posoccipital scutes in the first place because they still have normal scales in the same spot
The scutes present behind the eyes of saltwater crocs are scutes, they're just not postoccipital scutes specifically because they're different in every individual just like most croc scutes.
>>
>>3928998
What about turtles?
>>
>>3928999
scutes.

birds, turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs all have scutes.

some lizards and snakes have scutes and scales.
>>
>>3928999
If the scale sticks out of the skin and overlaps other scales it is a scale but not a scute or osteoderm

If the scale grows in the skin and doesn't overlap other scales it's a scute.

If the scale is a scute and it has bone under it, it is an osteoderm.
>>
>>3928998
>Most scutes aren't
Yes they are, check out https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/azo.12114
>every scale on their body that's not an osteoderm does that. And yes, birds do it too. That's why every bird has different scale patterns. Same with crocs.
This isn’t true at all. The facial scales of crocodiles form via physical cracking that occurs randomly while the scales on the body of crocs, birds, etc are all genetically pre-determined. This sort of physical cracking is unique to crocs and is extremely specialised. See https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1226265
>they're just not postoccipital scutes specifically because they're different in every individual just like most croc scutes.
If this were the case then all crocodilians would have the same apply to them. Saltwater crocodiles are the only species this applies to and it is a species level trait, not individual variation. All nile crocodiles have postoccipital scutes, all American crocodiles have postoccipital scutes, but not a single saltwater crocodile has them and yet they all still have postoccipital scales
>>
>>3928998
>>3929010
You know maybe it’s the hundred or so replies and the fact this has lasted days but for some reason I think this might be a pretty fucking pointless argument that’s not gonna end anytime soon

so how bout you lot bring it back to actual dinosaur discussion and not what does and does not make up a crocodile’s foreskin
>>
>>3911899
That was debunked when we found skin imprints.
>>
>>3929001
Mammals have scutes as well.
>>
No croc scale talk, new dromaeosaur dropped
>>
File: 1605756762124.jpg (227 KB, 1080x1433)
227 KB
227 KB JPG
>>3917784
>>
>>3920509
So it feathers could be anywhere except the face, head, sides, back, neck, and lower legs? You imagine the T-rex with a fuzzy chest, things and tail?
>>
>>3923294
Heat distribution and cooling it's blood? That was the explanation I heard as a child.
>>
HURRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRR WHATS UP NIGGERS
>>
>>3929047
they could be anywhere on the pic related
I never said I though T. rex was feathered, I said it could be.
>>
>>3929010
Yeah, what you're not understanding is that birds and crocs and dinosaurs have both types of scute.

They have scutes that are predetermined, that follow a pattern in every individual.

They also have random scutes that form based on how the skin folds and don't follow any pattern.

Your little mind can't comprehend 2 different processes happening in the same animal. That's just too much for you to grasp. The autism demands that they do one or the other, not both.
>>
>>3929017
>this might be a pretty fucking pointless argument that’s not gonna end anytime soon

the point of the argument isn't to determine anything about dinosaurs. This stuff is already known in science.

The point for one side is to try to impress people with obscure facts.

the point of the other side is to examine how defective minds protect themselves from admitting an error.
>>
>>3929582
>The point for one side is to try to impress people with obscure facts.
We have one or two people here that don't know much about dinosaurs and have very poor reading comprehension, but pass themselves off as experts every day for years at a time. Their ego feeds on others seeing them as experts, and they deride actual experts because they think 30 seconds on wikipedia gives them the same knowledge as 8 years in university and the field.
>the point of the other side is to examine how defective minds protect themselves from admitting an error.
Being a pretend expert requires a person to never admit an error. Actual experts admit error and learn. Pretend experts spend days arguing that they were actually right all along and never learn because of this.

Or if they learn, it takes years of constantly being faced with their error. /an/ is a great example of this. Our 'experts' learn, but usually decades after the real experts have already adopted a position because real experts are open to changing their minds. A real expert doesn't mind being wrong sometimes because it's bound to happen a lot and they know it.
>>
>>3929579
>Your little mind can't comprehend 2 different processes happening in the same animal
Literally the entire discussion has been about how the process that creates the skin on a crocodile’s face is different to the process that creates the scales on its body.

The conversation has moved on, you all need to stfu about your retarded obsession over crocodile skin. You’re all trying too hard to be right like a bunch of armchair scientists, go write a fucking paper on the definition of a scute with the time you’ve wasted if you care that fucking much
>>
>>3929711
>Literally the entire discussion has been about how the process that creates the skin on a crocodile’s face is different to the process that creates the scales on its body.
gradients. degrees.

yes, it's different. and it's also the same.

> go write a fucking paper on the definition of a scute
no need. That's children's work. It's been done hundreds of times in hundreds of grad papers. I want you fuckers to move past children's understanding. I write for facebook and 4channel. There will come a time when that becomes science too.
>>
>>3929755
Cringe. Go back to Facebook, this is a dinosaur thread
>>
>>3930047
suck my cock on facebook and I'll go there
>>
>>3930070
Cringe
>>3930047
Yes
>>
>>3930110
>lick lick lick
>>
>>3930110
thank you sergeant dick lickey
>>
>>3930047
>>3930110
>where can I find dicks to suck?
oh, let's tell him to go to facebook!
>>
>>3929755
>It's been done hundreds of times in hundreds of grad papers
Somehow I don’t think anybody has written an actual paper on the definition of a scute
>I write for facebook and 4channel. There will come a time when that becomes science too
the fact people believed you were serious there is whack



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.