[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]


File: 1632104405734.jpg (391 KB, 3000x1706)
391 KB
391 KB JPG
Last thread:. >>3911856

Please talk about dinosaurs and other fossilized animals instead of proving definitively that you don't understand crocodile anatomy.
>>
File: 1632104998129.jpg (54 KB, 583x1200)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>3930984
I think that WebM showing the T.rexs doing the mouth measuring threat display from a couple of threads ago is probably related to the paper this presentation is derived from, but I found video released by the Royal Tyrrell YouTube channel last week to be a comfy watch and thought you all might enjoy it too.
https://youtu.be/wAUapquyvW0
>>
>>3930984
>instead of proving definitively that you don't understand crocodile anatomy
Agreed, and on top of that continuing the argument after it’s basically finished
>>
>>3930984
I gave up on arguing half way through the last threat but I will point out that in addition to Carr et all 2017, Ibrahim et al 2014 and Barker et al 2017, come to similar conclusions regarding lips or lack thereof in Spinosaurus and Neovenator respectively. So making it out as though it's simply a claim of one paper is erroneous. Anyway I'm happy to not keep arguing it as they might well have had lips, just wanted to point to the research for anyone who is interested. You can find the papers online pretty easily
>>
>>3931066
They weren’t even arguing about lips by the end of it, at that point it was two retards going at it about the semantics of scales vs scutes

On another note, new mosasaur in the works
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210830100012.htm
>>
>>3931083
Oh I agree, I was the one discussing about lips at the start. But then it turned into skin vs scales autism.
>>
How come carcharodontosaurids all went extinct by the end of the Turonian? Were dinosaurs in decline before the end of the cretaceous?
>>
>>3931083
>it was two retards going at it about the semantics of scales vs scutes
It was one retard spewing bullshit and one professional dinosaur paleontologist correcting him.
If you never studied archosaur integument it might be hard to tell the difference.
>>
>>3931105
>one professional dinosaur paleontologist
Is this the one who said he writes specifically on 4chan and Facebook? Either way this isn’t restarting on this thread
>>3931093
It’s not entirely certain but likely had a lot to do with shifting environmental conditions and prey types as well as increasing competition from some of the later theropods
>>
>>3931113
>Is this the one who said he writes specifically on 4chan and Facebook?
I've published in a number of journals. The last bit of published science I did was on /an/ and facebook, as an irritating joke on people that buy fossils just to name them. The retard I was arguing with probably remembers what I'm talking about. We named a new dinosaur here and then published the name on facebook. Which may or may not stand up to formal appeal, but it'll certainly fuck with the next person that tries to name it.
>>
>>3931117
I want to see taxonomic vandalism from 4chan go down in history
>>
>>3931117
On top of that where can I read this
>>
>>3931121
so far nobody else has tried to name the thing. It's been a couple years. If someone does try to rename it I'm prepared to defend the name 4chan gave it.
>>
>>3931123
>On top of that where can I read this
I'm not going to say because I'm not in the habit of doxxing myself to the schizos and idiots of /an/.

You can't find out anything by searching anyways. The post is hidden deep in the ancient scrolls of a certain facebook group. Like a time bomb waiting for someone to try to name the fossil only to discover /an/ already named it.
>>
>>3931129
>Like a time bomb waiting for someone to try to name the fossil only to discover /an/ already named it
It wouldn’t hold up if someone renamed it, but it’d be pretty funny if it did. What was the name given to it in the first place
>>
>>3930984
So this Dineobellator is confirmed feathered by the presence of quill knobs, but is also supposed to have a more mobile wrist, more mobile tail base, and stronger grip strength than earlier American or comparable Asian dromaeosaurids. Does this maybe mean this animal might have targeted larger prey items, or is it going to end up being something lame like ripping open rotten cycad stumps for bugs?
>>
>>3931105
There was at least 3, probably more, all retards
>>
>>3931175
It's not retarded to not know something. The stuff we each don't know could fill libraries.

I think it's retarded to spend days defending your ignorance and claiming it's actually expertise, but that's a sort of retardation that I find fascinating. People want to believe they have a pretty good handle on things and how they explain the gaps in their knowledge is enlightening. Abstraction is by its nature simplification, but some topics and some minds deal better with complexity than others. You guys see a stupid argument you have no interest in and that's only vaguely related to dinosaurs. I see a fascinating example of parallel linear thought being confronted with disjointed webs of information.
>>
>>3931137
>It wouldn’t hold up if someone renamed it,
all of the conventions were upheld except one-
common usage. The name we gave it isn't in common usage.
So they could pretty easily petition to have it renamed, but that's still going to get our name on the books as a rejected senior synonym. Which is still pretty fucking funny.
>>
>>3931252
>a rejected senior synonym
Also it's possible the commission will find no reason to reject the senior name. In which case we named it and it stuck.
>>
>>3931137
When pics of the animal were first published several paleontologists remarked that it was clearly a new genus and species. Possibly a new family of dinosaur.
The simple fact that nobody's described it in the subsequent couple years probably indicates that they're aware of what we did and don't want to mess with it. We took a giant shit in their punch bowl it seems.
>>
>>3931255
>We took a giant shit in their punch bowl it seems
But seriously, if you find a brand new genus and species of giant theropod and then sell it on ebay you have to know some asshole is going to jump in and preemptively name the thing just to be a dick.
>>
>>3931256
And half the reason some rich cunt bought the thing was so they could have a giant theropod named after them.

Well hopefully that didn't work out.
>>
>>3931137
>What was the name given to it in the first place
genus 4chan's lizard
species a group of trolls
latinized of course.
>>
File: WDR.jpg (79 KB, 1280x720)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>3930984
I was just watching an old Discovery Channel documentary titled "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth". It was made around the late 90's, narrated by Jeff Goldblum. It's obvious that a lot of the information presented aged badly after more than 20 years, though it was kind of interesting to see how the paleontologists work in the field digging up fossils and trying bring it back with difficulty to the museum. There are some CG and stop motion reconstruction there which look... well let's just say not very convincing.

Pic related is their depiction of Spinosaurus. They thought it isn't the biggest land predator at the time and there is a part where Jeff Goldblum said that these guys must still watch out for Carcharadontosaurus who are described as the biggest carnivores around. Some famous paleontologist like Robert T. Bakker and Paul Sereno appeared several times and they mentioned about how Spinos are most likely a fish eater due to it's teeth shape. I was under the impression the fish eating behavior is something recently speculated, but apparently they already thought about it since the 90's at least.
>>
>>3931314
We've suspected it since we had a tooth, because all of the various flesh tearing theropods have serrated teeth, and Spinosaurus does not. Now that we have a skull, it couldn't be more obvious.
>>
File: OldSpino.jpg (57 KB, 472x649)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>3931314
>That Spinosaurus
I am so used with the long snout, croc headed Spinosaurus.
>there is a part where Jeff Goldblum said that these guys must still watch out for Carcharadontosaurus
Well, the younger ones at least definitely need to watch out. I think a full grown Spino would still be too much of a problem to attack head on as a prey, even if we go by the old Spinosaurus size.
>>
File: E3FjEYDUcAQ3Ios.jpg (59 KB, 567x425)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>
>>3931093
My favorite theory is that the rising of the advanced middle sized Tyrransauriods began to outcompete the juvenile Carcharodontosaurids for the niches these juveniles exploited while growing up. Fewer Carcharodontosaurids making it to adulthood means that the niches they inhabited start to open up, which makes room for giant Tyrranosaurids to arise.

Changing plant composition also leads to changing herbivore population distribution, which can affect overly specialized predators negatively as well.
>>
>>3931581
Hmm and the same situation with Abelisaurids in the southern hemisphere.
>>
Why do people make memes about dinosaur skeletons relative to mammalian skeletons like hippos when reptile skeletons tend to be accurate?
>>
>>3931093
Carch teeth are known from late Maastritchian brazil
>>
>>3931661
Scientific illiteracy, funny memes, other general reddit tendencies
>>
File: night vision dinos.jpg (356 KB, 1600x1240)
356 KB
356 KB JPG
>>3931661
Because midwits are not nearly as clever as they think they are.
Many such cases.
>>
>>3931596
Carcharodontosaurs weren’t doing as bad as you think.
>>
>>3931661
Fifty percent what >>3931707 said, and fifty percent because they're furries who want to be fucked by a heckin' flufflebutt chonkrex. Furries that are in denial about crocodilians being a better analogue for the dinosaur baseline than birds.
>>
So /an/, is he real?
>>
>>3931722
Almost certainly not. Although if Dakotaraptor ends up being fake and gay it will lend more validity to Nano.
>>
>>3931731
Ive seen fairly conclusive proof that nano is real. Don’t know when the certain Morrison worker who found it will publish, but there wa definitely an albertosaurine theropod running around the end Cretaceous.
>>
>>3931733
That'd be cool, but until there's solid literature on the subject, I am in the it's-a-babby-rex camp.
>>
>>3931736
What do you think it’d take to convince you?
>>
>>3931740
Morphology or pathology found on a small Hell Creek Tyrannosaur skeleton that we commonly associate with sexually mature animals. That would be fairly concrete evidence. Otherwise I dunno, a more comprehensive catalog of very young T. rex would be helpful, to contrast these specimens with the Nano holotype as well as Jane.
>>
>>3931765
I think it’s interesting that we have to view every small tyrannosaurid as juvenile rex by default regardless of what it actually looks like.
>>
>>3931781
Tyrannosaurs are weird anon. Allosaurs are a far more upstanding bunch t b h.
>>
>>3931794
Indeed
>>
>>3931336
>all of the various flesh tearing theropods have serrated teeth, and Spinosaurus does not.
there you go making up some bullshit again

Spinosaurus teeth are serrated. So according to you they ate red meat
>>
>>3931336
>>3931833
Oh I see now.
You're getting info off the wiki page.

You shouldn't trust that page because it leans heavily on Ibrahim et al. And those guys are pushing some things that aren't necessarily true.

In real life most of the Spino teeth that have been found lack serrations but they also lack enamel. The ones found with enamel preserved usually have serrations. Ibrahim and others have pushed the idea that they lacked serrations based on teeth with missing enamel because no serrations fits their aquatic Spino. Even though it's probably not true.

We can't say for certain because no fully preserved teeth with enamel have been found with an unequivocal spino skull. Ibrahim is expressing far more certainty than actually exists. If anything he made the situation much more uncertain by synonymizing several possible species of spino, including 2 possible species based on the presence or absence of serrated teeth.
>>
>>3931844
Ive got like 3 Moroccan teeth and 2 of them have serrations. Are these enameled or am I just a retard who got duped into buying fake teeth? The seller is a trusted friend of mine.
>>
>>3931846
They're fine.
I have 2 unserrated and one partly serrated, also from Morocco.

The serrated spino teeth are a bit rare because teeth from that location aren't usually in good enough shape to preserve the serrations. But they're real. Scientists since Stromer have recognized that some spino teeth have serrations. And at least one has argued that they were all serrated but most simply didn't preserve the serrations for taphonomic reasons.
>>
>>3931846
We can know they're real because theropods all had unique serrations (denticles) that had a particular shape and size range unique to the genus and sometimes species.

People that manufacture fake fossils wouldn't be able to coordinate together to get the size and shape of the serrations right. So as long as the serrations on your teeth match known spino teeth serrations they're undoubtedly real. Faking serration size and shape is too much work for fossil counterfeiters anyways. I don't know that it's ever been successfully faked.
>>
File: DJYhcs4V4AAiuJH.jpg (37 KB, 960x540)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>3931733
>Ive seen fairly conclusive proof that nano is real.
>>
>>3931863
Dude is apparently friends with Bakker. If he says he's seen solid evidence he's probably telling the truth. And he probably can't tell you what he saw.
>>
>>3931765
>Morphology or pathology found on a small Hell Creek Tyrannosaur skeleton that we commonly associate with sexually mature animals
This was already published in the original description. It was the whole basis for the genus in the first place.
>>
>>3931866
checked
>>
>>3931872
>>3931863
I’m not demanding you believe me, but I have no reason to lie and believed myself that nano was dead until I saw an actual juvie rex fossil that’s clearly different from its nano equivalent. I’m not ordered to say silent on it but think it’s good practice to do so.
>>
File: allosaurus.jpg (484 KB, 1920x1080)
484 KB
484 KB JPG
>>3931794
Based allo chad. Agreed, just look at the aesthetics on this thing. Never topped.

Memes aside though, there is something very "off" about tyrannosaurs to me, or rather T. rex in particular. If you buy that there were no other giant or even large predators sharing its ecosystem, that Nanotyrannus is just a rex juvenile, and that the species controlled all available niches in the environment throughout its lifespan...then what we're left with is a species that actually negatively impacted it's environment in a way not matched until we humans came along. If all other large predators were out-competed and disappeared, then what we are left with is NOT a healthy ecosystem. To say nothing of the herbivore population that went from a huge variety of hadrosaur and ceratopsian genera being present in Campanian times being reduced to just 1 or 2 giant surviving forms from each clade.
How much of the reduced diversity of both predators and prey in Hell Creek might be attributed to the rex itself? It seems to me like a species that might have been just a little too good at its job.
>>
>this is what liberals actually believe
>>
>>3931942
What do you mean?
>>
>>3931314
>was under the impression the fish eating behavior is something recently speculated
Even Stromer originally speculated it may have eaten fish due to the number of large fish species he saw were present in the same layers
>>
File: E-33pC9VcAQ79ik.jpg (399 KB, 2066x1550)
399 KB
399 KB JPG
>>3931868
The teeth don't count and the fused skull isn't enough.
>>3931907
You better not be pulling my leg bro. I just want to see the Saurian dev team get assblasted over it, just as they did with scaley T. rex.
>>
>>3931978
>The teeth don't count and the fused skull isn't enough.
I was going to post that too

tooth count doesn't matter, morphometrics can be ignored, histology isn't convincing

But hey if you find one that LOOKS different I'm convinced!

it's some sort of sad joke.
>>
>>3931980
>But hey if you find one that LOOKS different I'm convinced!
Yes.
>>
>>3931978
I promise, everything I’ve said I’m just repeating from what a paleontologist told me. Once he showed me the tooth and it sunk in what I was looking at, my eyes went wide and he said “give me a few months and I could write up the paper.” Now, this implies that there’s a chance he won’t. For some reason, very important undescribed material just collects dust for years while the researcher publish a paper on camarasaur specimen number 1253 or whatever bullshit. It might have to do with esoteric political machinations I’m not privy too, but it’s still infuriating.

>>3931980
>Any difference between morphotypes MUST be viewed as ontogenetic by default!
Why the fuck did Jack Horner of all people have to go and teach so many fucking students who now peddle his bullshit?
>>
>>3931998
>Why the fuck did Jack Horner of all people have to go and teach so many fucking students who now peddle his bullshit?
Jack Horner taught everyone that agrees with him and everyone that disagrees with him too. He taught everyone.

/an/ doesn't seem to understand that. Horner taught everyone.
>>
>>3932001
Every time I listen to Horner talk, I like him less.
>>
>>3932007
I like him just fine.
I don't agree with everything he says academically, but he's a good enough guy.
>>
>>3931998
>It might have to do with esoteric political machinations I’m not privy too, but it’s still infuriating.
We're usually 'busy' lecturing or checking out new finds or bullshitting with staff at other museums or universities or saving the great finds for some awesome collaboration or helping a grad student write up a paper on camarasaurus specimen number 1253 or writing grants or schmoozing or hitting on women or just sitting around drinking beer and reading stephen king novels.
>>
File: zMPubrl8q2.png (3.99 MB, 1920x1027)
3.99 MB
3.99 MB PNG
/v/ guy here. I've been playing Jurassic World Evolution and I have to ask, were dinosaurs real?
>>
>>3932018
Not even that I’m talking about shit that’s been sitting around collecting dust Doing fuckall for decades that is apparently SUPER important in a long running debate, but is still being neglected.

You wouldn’t happen to be my old friend the paleoschizo from a couple years back? You kind of type like him but I thought he was living fat off his retirement after making a bajillion dollars in a gold mine, not in academia.
>>
>>3932026
>You kind of type like him but I thought he was living fat off his retirement after making a bajillion dollars in a gold mine, not in academia.
I retired 18 years ago. So I was retired a couple years back when I lurked more. Hell, I was retired before I studied dinosaurs.
>>
>>3932026
>that is apparently SUPER important in a long running debate, but is still being neglected.
You know how that feels though. You have a bit of information that would settle the dispute but it's kinda fun just having it and knowing which side is right without saying anything, huh?

I did that for years here. I still do it. I know some stuff that would blow /an/'s minds, but they wouldn't believe me if I told them so I just sit back and enjoy my secret insider information.
>>
>>3932028
Ok so you’re not him it seems. What’s your area of study? You going to SVP?
>>
>>3932032
>You know how that feels
Fuck no I like rubbing my knowledge in other people’s face. Perhaps a bit of a personal failing, but still.

>I’ve seen things
Try me.
>>
>>3931714
Care to elaborate? They seem to have been extinct by the end of the Turonian. Not saying they won't find any late surviving Allosauroids, but Tyrannosauroids and Abelisauroids seem to have taken over their niches.
>>
>>3931939
Wasn't the end of Cretaceous renowned for its relative lack of biological diversity compared to previous eras? It was essentially the "Greatest Hits" of the Mesozoic, with very limited representation of the major dinosaur clades. It's wholly likely that Tyrannosaurids DID negatively impact the ecosystem through their success, causing the various lines of animals to consolidate into the most derived and specialized species familiar to us.
>>
>>3930990
Thanks anon will have a look at it.
>>
>>3932034
>Ok so you’re not him it seems
I am him
> You going to SVP
nah
>>
>>3932036
There’s lots of catch teeth known from campanian- Maastritchian brazil
>>
>>3931687
Interesting? I thought those were later attributed to Abelisaurs.
>>
>>3932039
Ah are you teaching now?

I unfortunately am going to svp because after 2 months being a fed, I’m realizing I’m missing the ology in my geology and want to go to grad school so I need people to schmooze.
>>
>>3931168
Might have used it to grab smaller prey.
>>
>>3932045
>Ah are you teaching now?
no I haven't taught in years. I was never tenured. Adjunct.

>after 2 months being a fed
they'll let anyone in, huh? kek
I'm technically a fed also.
>>
>>3931939
Probably Niggerceratops and Tyrannosaurnig destroyed the whole ecosystem before God finished them off.
>>
>>3932042
Not as of, like, 2017
>>
>>3932055
Any chance I could leverage my fed job into a mining exploration job that also nets me a gajillion dollars? Keep in mind, I know dick about mining.
>>
>>3932063
not really. I got into federal contracting FROM mining. My experience with feds is they tend to stay in the system to retirement. Not a lot of paths that go from glowie to private sector.

Mining companies do like to hire federal compliance and contracting officers to help them get federal contracts sometimes, but that's all I've seen personally. If you know FAR you could get into a business admin company for federal contracts and make billions. I've talked to a couple Contracting Officers about that route. The market is pretty saturated though.
>>
>>3932067
Damn, covid got all my internships cancelled so now I am in the worst job market since the depression with no experience trying to enter a field with decades of endemic bureaucratic bullshit hyper specialized knowledge you need to know to just be sort of competent.

I’m still putting out feelers and schmoozing old industry boomers to see what happens but I’m not holding my breath.

My current plan (assuming I don’t trip into something highly lucrative) is to quit my current job after hitting my target grade in about two years, go to grad school, study Mesozoic sedimentology so I can still work in paleo without being completely unmarketable to anyone else, then try to get a job with the usgs. My pipe dream is to be one of the dudes in Antarctica or the Colville or whatever doing paleoclimatology with implications towards modern climate change so I’m not just pursuing my niche turboautist hobby but also potentially helping the world. This might be a case of me trying to have my cake and eat it too, tho.

This sound like a good plan to you or am I a retard?
>>
>>3932078
eh, actual paleontology is done by academics in universities, mostly at the doctorate and post doc levels. And that doesn't pay shit. You have to love it and then do it for 30 years for room and board before someone finally offers you a position that pays six figures but locks you into academia for life.

Government paleontologists are rare, and usually the first people to get fired when there's a recession or the creationists win an election.

I would pick one or the other. Either a cushy federal job with great benefits and a chance of moving elsewhere if not up. Or private sector academia digging dinosaurs for Jack Horner and getting paid in coffee and hot grad students.
>>
>>3932083
Oh I don’t plan on doing paleontology for the USGS, just general field geology and stratigraphy or whatnot with sedimentary rocks. Studying Mesozoic Sedimentology is my way of studying skills actually in demand for usgs and oil exploration and geothermal and climatology while also contributing to our knowledge of the Mesozoic world. Any paleo fun would be done in my down time.
>>
>>3932078
Also should add,
most of the feds I work with are gs 9's and are millionaires. They do better than PhD's from what I've seen. Federal work is very cushy and hard to get into. If you're lucky enough to have a glowie job you might consider keeping it or moving to another one. It's really hard to match their pay and benefits, especially in science.
>>
>>3932083
Also Bakker told me I should work in geochronology if I want to increase our understanding of the Morrison. He also mentioned that opening up my own geochronology lab would be very lucrative some years down the line.

That kinda sounds dubious to me, though
>>
>>3932086
gotcha.

I mean at the hobby level it's illegal to even look for vertebrate fossils on federal land, let alone do anything with them. You could always "accidentally" find stuff but they're probably just going to hand it off to a museum or university for study.

You can do what I did and work in paleo as part of your curriculum, but they do prefer people that plan to go into it professionally. Like if they knew I was never going to do paleo professionally nobody would've worked with me.
>>
>>3932087
I have no idea how I’m supposed to be a millionaire at a gs9. Im a gs7 rn and barely getting by.
>>
>>3932091
>That kinda sounds dubious to me, though
kek
me too.

Maybe he was making a subtle reference to uranium? Or rare earths? Problem is the genesis of the deposit doesn't really matter when it comes to locating them.
>>
>>3932092
How did you get into exploration mining from paleo?
>>
>>3932094
>I have no idea how I’m supposed to be a millionaire at a gs9.
20+ years of easy desk job investing in your retirement while buying a home will do it. Most of the guys I work with are 60 years old and been doing this all their lives.
>>
>>3932095
I think he meant people sending me samples and me charging a shitload of money to test them. I know absolutely nothing about it, and googling the field is a dead end.
>>
>>3932096
I didn't

I got into paleo after making bank in mining.

I studied geology, went into mining, got into contracting, got rich. Then went back to school for paleo.
>>
>>3932098
Ah, but see, what’s the point of being wealthy if I’m not in my 20’s to enjoy it?
>>
>>3932099
Yeah I don't see that being much of a business, but who knows? Bakker is a nut. You know that.
>>
>>3932101
Huh. I see. How did you get experience with all the huge amounts of hyperspecialized knowledge required to perform? Internships?
>>
>>3932102
>what’s the point of being wealthy if I’m not in my 20’s to enjoy it?
a great question.
Personally I got moderately wealthy at the age of 32. Which is a pretty good age to have money.
>>
>>3932103
What do you think of Mossbrucker?
>>
>>3932106
>How did you get experience with all the huge amounts of hyperspecialized knowledge required to perform?
That's what school is for. Yeah, you'll do internships, but usually the stuff you're doing is only open to students so the schooling is a requirement.
>>3932108
You know Mossbrucker, I don't. lol
>>
>>3932114
Dude I didn’t learn shit in school. Maybe my program was just incompetent but I still know next to nothing about oil. What percentage of the guys who go into exploration mining make bank?
>>
>>3932118
You'll learn way more at the post grad level. Look for a program that's specific. I didn't learn a damn thing about paleo while doing my geo degree. It was like one semester and barely covered anything. But it was enough for me to know I wanted to learn more.

>What percentage of the guys who go into exploration mining make bank?
depends on your capacity and education. If you got a masters you're going to make $75-$125k to start which is well on your way to millions. Hell, most geologists wind up being millionaires just off a salary.

If you mean starting a company, that really depends what exactly your company does. But most businesses fail, and that's even more true in mining.
>>
>>3932121
>start a company
Nah, ill let everyone else take the risks.

Dammit why can’t I just be a globetrotting paleontologist who makes $150k and also helps save the world?
>>
>>3932133
>why can’t I just be a globetrotting paleontologist who makes $150k and also helps save the world?
You can. Just get your PhD and then publish 120 papers as co-author for your professor and then when he dies you can cage-fight 35 other post docs in a brawl to the death to get his position. After that $150k per year and globetrotting is pretty much guaranteed. Book deals, movie credits, 18 year old grad student wives, it's all there waiting for you to turn 65.
>>
>>3932161
Post docs should bite each-others faces for the position in the time honoured tradition of the tyrannosaurs
>>
File: 5-Figure1-1.png (1.34 MB, 1360x820)
1.34 MB
1.34 MB PNG
>>3932170
lol
>who's in charge of this project?
>Go talk to scarface over there
>>
>>3932161
What’s the deal with Horner’s jailbait waifu anyways? I’ve actually met her and asked about it but I couldn’t get a straight answer other than it being a platonic thing done for a nepotism clause or some bullshit. Made zero sense to me.
>>
>>3932174
Yeah that's the cover story. I don't know what's true. I do know if I was him I'd probably want to bang her.
>>
Dinosaurs aren't real
>>
>>3932186
How do you know?
>>
>>3932185
Wh, she’s like a 6. Maybe a 7 when she was younger. If you’re Jack Horner you should be able to do better.
>>
>>3932191
>If you’re Jack Horner you should be able to do better.
He really hasn't aged well.
>>
>>3932199
That was mostly sarcasm. My point is that if you’re gonna pick a grad student to molest and lose your job over it, you should try for better
>>
>>3932205
Pretty much anyone is an improvement over someone his age. Hell, he's older than me and I wouldn't even date women my age.
>>
>>3932205
Also probably not a lot of options.

From what I've seen paleontology isn't exactly a turn-on for most women.
>>
>>3932220
Yeah but you’re rich.
>>
>>3931907
>my dad works at nintendo
>>
>>3932222
Most of the women I talk to don't know that. I dress like a homeless person and am noticeably insane.
>>
>>3932229
Doesn’t surprise me. Why not try a facsimile of normal and get your just kicked by a 19 year old every week?
>>
>>3932240
It amuses me to be myself and watch women recoil in horror.

just kidding, I'm good looking enough. But even women that like me tell me to shut up when I start droning on about dinosaur bones.
>>
>>3932246
There truly is no hope :(
>>
>>3932248
Lol nothing kills romance quite as fast as a brief dinnertime lecture on the reptilian vagus foramen
>>
>>3932022
all the dinos in the game besides indoraptor were fake
>>
>all these people talking about paleontological bureaucracy, Bend actual paleontologists, or at least pretending to be.
>I'm just a CADmonkey wage slave too bar at chemistry to every pursue what I actually wanted to do after high school.
Not sure if I should be jealous or happy about how awful they make it sound. Would be nice if we could actually talk about dinosaurs but I guess I'm reality everything that can be said is already said and all we can do is argue about lips and feathers forever.
>>
>>3932554
Bring up something you want to talk about and hope that you're not wrong enough to get mocked, just ruthlessly corrected.
>>
Discuss the various species of my favorite sauropod, Mamenchisaurus.
>>
>>3932707
Mamenchisaurus is cool because it was by far the largest non-eusauropodan sauropod.
From just my cursory reading I did under my desk at work, it seems that Mamenchisauridae held its neck upwards which implies a high browsing adaptation, but there was a good deal of downward flexion capabIlity implying it could browse mid and low as well. I find this interesting because it appears this more primitive sauropod has a more generalized niche than the more advanced Morrison eusauropods which are more specialized or each role.
>>
>>3932735
Mamenchisaurus became my favorite sauropod after I saw them in the Lost World arcade game and they looked different from the standard diplodocus shape that most sauropods get stereotyped as.
>>
File: UUVP 5961.jpg (52 KB, 944x724)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>3932554
>Would be nice if we could actually talk about dinosaurs but I guess I'm reality everything that can be said is already said
I don't really relate to dinosaurs the way you guys do.

Like I'm a bit curious why if the buttressing and bifurcation of the basitubera in Allosaurus allowed stronger and faster ventroflexion of the rostrum, why was the occipital face angled in such a way as to shorten the distance of muscle contraction and why is the supraoccipital ridge and face enlarged? And why are these conditions wholly absent in Acrocanthosaurus?

But this sort of musing isn't interesting to anyone here that I know of, and even if it were there's not a lot we can do with it.

So lips and feathers it is.
>>
File: lol i dino.jpg (33 KB, 459x328)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>>3932852
Didn't mean to kill the thread

You guys go ahead and talk about your favorite dinosaur or which dinos you want to sex or whatever.

I can always go back to laughing at pretend veterinarians and fake biologists in other threads.
>>
>>3933061
>sorry, not sorry
wow you literally cannot make a post without sucking your own dick and disparaging everybody else that isn't you
>>
>>3933071
I've kept my mouth shut for over 2 years now. And I'm going away again. But I see you guys pretending to know shit you're too lazy to look up.
All day every day.
>>
>>3933073
Join a fucking dedicated paleo group on Facebook or discord, it’s not that hard to figure out that a general nature board is not going to have people interested in something super specific. But then again most quality groups aren’t interested in the sort of people who argue endlessly about dumb shit that these threads attract.

Shoulda kept your mouth shut for a few more years if you’re gonna act like the all knowing 4chan paleontologist
>>
>>3931722
Wait for when they find some carnivorous theropod bones, and call them Assassinosaurus nocturnus, Torvomessor mortiferus or Regnasaurus tyrannus (Regisaurus is taken), for those will absolutely be distinct, new animal taxa and not clickbait studies.
>>
>>3933452
Sit on an icepack if someone with an actual education on a subject hurts your feelings because he doesn't dumb down his technical knowledge. Also he hasn't kept his mouth shut for 2 years, I'm pretty sure he posts more than that.
>>3932852
I like your posts. First they're funny because of the way they buttfluster the hobbyist spergs and because of the way you're too much of a sperg to use language that non-specialists understand to talk about the subject and you don't give a single fuck about how that makes people resent you. And second, because they actually do have insight about interesting dinosaur features.

You remind me of the worst highschool science teacher I've ever had. He was 10-15 IQ points smarter than anyone in the building, he was only teaching highschool science because he wanted to be a Cross Country running coach and the colleges he wanted to teach at didn't need one back when he was looking for a job, and he engaged with his highschool sophomore level life science class like they were a bunch of undergrads, complete with no patience for people with even a slightly below average understanding of basic life science principles that they last would have learned about in 7th grade and an inappropriate pervyness towards 16 year old girls.

Woe betide anyone who needed to hear something twice to learn it in his class.

Worst science teacher I ever had, but what a delicious source of shadenfreud as everyone who habitually coasted on a highschool teacher's willingness to repeat basic shit on and on ad infinitum suddenly found themselves in a class where the teacher refused to repeat anything on principle and made sure that about 20% of the test questions were derived from the reading assignments and had not been covered verbally in class.

Anyways, with reguard to Allosaurus, I wonder if all of these features suggest a great deal of muscle in a small area and if that might be for shock absorption. But that's basically a WAG.
>>
>>3933476
Who said it was about education? What kind of retarded leap in logic is that? Is it really that much of a mystery why nobody cares about the details of anatomy in dinosaurs when the board is full of artists and dog fuckers
>>
>>3933501
It's not a mystery why most are uneducated in your field, but even an autistic dogfucker can get an education in dinosaur anatomy, so it's not the autism or the beastial preferences that prevent them from talking about anatomy in these threads, and even then it's not like it's impossible to demystify even technical discussion if you're not speaking with other specialists.
But if discussing things with laymen in language that isn't too obtuse for them, or even just BTFOing them periodically, is a waste of your valuable 4chins time, so be it.
>>
>>3933556
>he's still doing it
>>
File: 1430985586375.jpg (45 KB, 540x480)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>3933501
>artists don't need to understand anatomy
>>
>>3933692
I think that's an autocorrect from Autist
>>
File: image_2021-09-23_003751.png (246 KB, 1024x326)
246 KB
246 KB PNG
>>3930984
>Simulating Dinosaur Locomotion And Wrestling With Scepticism
https://whatsinjohnsfreezer.com/2021/09/22/dinotails/
>>
>>3933692
That would be a typo for autists me thinks
>>
>>3934309
That's a very interesting article, but I'm worried the torso is excessively stiff in his models. Avian torsos are very stiff because of their flight adaptations, but more basal theropods, to include T.rex, have far less rigid shoulder and ribcage anatomies. As one of the comments suggested, it'd be neat to get some comparative data from a basilisk lizard or similar.
>>
File: euphoric.jpg (53 KB, 355x471)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>3933501
>implying the understanding of anatomy isn't literally the only thing you need to be a successful porn artist

>>3933476
>>3933556

he's comparing you to the teacher because chuckecunts like you are the reason why people develop a hatered of science and decide that they never want to learn more than a surface level. There's probably a reason why no one but 4chan will talk with you about it. You should think about why, but you wont

until then, kindly fuck off
>>
>>3934655
>you are the reason why people develop a hatered of science and decide that they never want to learn more than a surface level.
Here I thought it was because you're a pack of retards that couldn't learn if they wanted to. But no, you're secret geniuses that just don't WANT to learn
>There's probably a reason why no one but 4chan will talk with you about it. You should think about why, but you wont
nobody here talks about anatomy. That's way out of their league and when they attempt it they look like fools.
>kindly fuck off
I've been here every day without fail for 10 years. You'll be gone long before I am.
>>
>>3934655
Don't try and represent me, crybaby.

I love it when actual paleontologist meaniehead makes people like you cry because he doesn't want to spoon-feed. I am fine with him dropping info like it appears in >>3932852, complete with difficult to Google anatomical terms. I'd like it if he'd do it more often so that people wouldn't spend so much time retreading arguments that were obsolete when basically popsci level papers were published on them a decade ago.
>>
File: 1538675553635.jpg (75 KB, 946x1024)
75 KB
75 KB JPG
>>3934727
>I've been here every day without fail for 10 years. You'll be gone long before I am.
>>3933073
>I've kept my mouth shut for over 2 years now. And I'm going away again.
>>
>>3934758
I rarely post.
I'm always here.
>>
>>3932022
Only one was real, all fossils came from the same mega fossil named Pangea, which was then split up into limbs that you would call "dinosaurs" today.
>>
>>3934933
people on /v/ and /tv/ still fall for this edit
>>
File: godzilla-2014.jpg (157 KB, 1400x700)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
Does Godzilla have scutes?
>>
>>3936134
>Does Godzilla have scutes?
Yes, 2 of the 3 types of scale visible in that pic are scutes. There is cracked keratinized skin, which is a form of scute. There are longitudinal rows of osteoderms, some with spikes. These are also scutes.

The third type, the transverse overlapping ventral scales could be either scales or scutes. They appear to be modeled on snake belly scales which are not scutes. But they might be modeled on similar transverse belly scales in extinct synapsid or crocodilian belly scales which are scutes.
>>
>>3931129
Please tell me it’s something funny like Copeandseetheasaurus or Trannysaurus Keks.
>>
>>3936444
This was longer ago than that.
>>
>>3931117
>>3936483
If you need fashionable cringy names for carnivores: >>3933468
>>
From the wiki
>Commenting on the maximum sizes of large mosasaurs, paleontologist Mike Everhart, a leading expert on mosasaurs, speculated that it would be possible for some extremely old Tylosaurus individuals to reach 20 meters (66 ft) in absolute maximum length.

Thoughts?
>>
>>3937364
He's free to speculate, but the biggest we've found so far is KUVP 5033, and that animal was probably between 13 and 14 meters in life, although it's been interpreted everywhere from. 12 to 15.8 meters.
>>
>>3937364
Everhart gave me a t shirt with the title of his newest paper on it a couple years ago. It is, to this day, the funniest and most ironic T-shirt I own and I fucking love it to death.
>>
Does anyone remember what book this illustration is from? I had it as a kid and this image made Dilophasraus my favorite dinosaur. Look at this fucking chad,. Theropods are so fucking cool, but Im willing to bet theres been a lot of scientific development.

How is my boy? Any new news or discoveries or whatever?
>>
>>3938573
It might be one of those Orbis dinosaur magazines from the UK in the 1990s but Im not 100% sure
>>
File: Cover.jpg (192 KB, 697x900)
192 KB
192 KB JPG
>>3938573
https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2013/11/vintage-dinosaur-art-dinosaurs-real.html
>>
painted this today, what do we think gang
>>
>>3939113
why does it have the blues
>>
>>3939117

hehe
>>
File: 1531740097525.jpg (411 KB, 2048x1492)
411 KB
411 KB JPG
>>3939113
>no lips
cringe desu
>>
>>3939113
Looks pretty nice but the colours are bit too out there. Try using a crocodillian model for your colours. Admittedly there's only two dinosaurs with scales for which colour is possibly known and both are pretty basic brown with dark areas on the top and counter shading on the bottom. They are both herbivores though. A Tyrannosaurs colouration would likely reflect the environment it hunted in and may have patterns to break up the outline as tigers and other predators do. Dinosaurs were likely a lot more visual than m*mmals though so bare that in mind. To be the resemblance of non-maniraptoran theropod brains to that of crocodillians as well as other croc like behaviour such as face biting makes it more likely that they were less elaborately colourful and more like crocs. With more derived feathered maniraptorans moving towards the colourful displays of modern birds as opposed to just straight up tearing eachothers faces off. That's all just an idea though.
>>
File: Tyrannosoyrus.jpg (92 KB, 748x550)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>3939146
>They were just hecking big lizards bro, they must have had lips.
>>
>>3939113
Very nice anon, though a bit shrink wrapped along the antorbital fenestra. Were the colors inspired by cassowaries?
>>
>>3939152
>>
>>3937406
What’re your thoughts on the Henderson 1998 paper in Morrison predator nice partitioning? It seems he might’ve been onto something if it could actually be established that Allosaurus had snout length based morphotypes but A. atrox is dead and no ones made any attempt to try again
>>
>>3939297
I do prefer two species types of Allosaurus to the use of the Antrodemus genus for the shorter and broader skull forms, but niche partitioning in that manner is a classic Darwinian speciation method, so it's silly to have only the one species of Allosaurus in the
Morrison formation.

I'd like a comparison between the bodies of specimens with the two skull forms, but I don't know how much material there is that has that level of preservation.
>>
>>3939146

He does have lips

>>3939173

Yeah I started with the skull so unfortunately fell into shrinkwrapping a little. Yes cassowary coloration was an inspo
>>
>>3939147

My idea was that there would be some inherited traits for an advanced coelurosaur like Tyrannosaurus that would make colour variation a little more bird-like. I imagined the rest of the body to be shaded and dappled browns and greys with lighter stripes to break up the outline, but my idea was that still-dark shades of colour on the face and neck would be part of mating or threat displays, the same way as silverbacks or cassowaries.
I think that, yes, dinosaurs were more visual than mammals, but they were also more visual than crocodiles, and closer to birds in their visual acuity than either. So, while a large dinosaur would prioritise low and brown-grey hues for camouflage, there could also be the potential for spots of colour for display purposes. Crocodiles live in a very unique ecological niche that isn't comparable to large dinosaurs. Uniform greens and browns, while probably common in dinosaurs, are a specific adaptation in crocodiles to match their aquatic lifestyle.
>>
>>3934741
Fat ass redditor thinks he's acting smart lmao
>>
>>3939152
WAOW BRO, YOU USED A WOJAK, UR TOTALLY NOT FROM REDDIT OR ANYTHING XD
>>
>>3938714
aw shit I had this as a kid
>>
Ceratosauria vs Carnosauria vs Coelurosauria

who wins? [spoiler]and who do you like more?[/spoiler]
>>
>>3942112
Carnosaurs are too stacked with apex predators for the others to compete for me really
>Spinosaurids
>Megalosaurids
>Allosaurids
>Carcharodontosaurids
>>
>>3942112
Carnosauria by a long shot. 6 of the 10 largest mega theropods are carcharodontosaurids, and on top of that there’s allosaurids, megalosaurids, etc
>>
>>3942112
Carnosauria would win but I like ceratosaurs the most
>>
>>3942128
Neovenatorids have megatheropods too
>>
>>3942149
a mega theropod anything over 5 tonnes right?
>>
>>3942216
Yeah anything the same size as or bigger than the average size of the largest land animal today (african elephant)
>>
>>3942371
Tfw Tarbosaurus and Zhuchengtyrannus barely scratch 5 tonnes even when being generous
>>
>>3942381
I have both of them at between 4 and 5 metric tons in mass. Same size as the largest Torvosaurus specimens which are 4-5 metric tons imo.
>>
>bahariasaurus likely a ceratosaur
>chilantaisaurus likely a carnosaur
we need giant megaraptorans
>>
>>3942503
>weak jaws
>large claws
Just spinosaurs but without the coolness
>>
>>3942114
tyrannosauridae singlehandedly carrying coelurosaurs
>>
>>3942512
Spinosaurids are a cross between a gharial and a heron.
>>
>>3942593
If spinosaurus is a gharial I guess that makes torvosaurus the equivalent to a crocodile or alligator
>>
>>3942548
tyrannosaurs were theropodlets for longer than abelisaurs
>>
>>3942594
Spinosaurus is like twice Torvosaurus' size, ibrahim thinks it's 10-12 tons where as before he thought it was only 6-7 tons
>>
>>3942863
Ibrahim thinks Spino is the biggest theropod now?
>>
File: ibrahimspinomass.png (10 KB, 667x76)
10 KB
10 KB PNG
>>3942864
1. Spinosaurus: 10-12 tons
2. Tyrannosaurus: 9.7 tons
3. Giganotosaurus: 8.3 tons
>>
>>3942883
There's also that sue sized campanas carcharodontosaur
>>
>>3939113
I'm blue dabadeedabada
>>
>>3942883
>12 ton spino
>>
>>3942883
>12 tonne spino
Ffs they’re doing it again
>>
>>3942149
So do sinraptorids
>>
>>3942114
Wait, are spinosaurs and megalosaurs classified as carnosaurs now? I thought they were just considered basal tetanurans?
>>
>>3943114
It's been that way since 2019.
>>
>>3942883
Spinobros..we won
>>
>>3942883
>we are undestimating the weight of many dinosaurs by the way
I used to trust Ibrahim's opinions on the Spinosaurus before now, but that piece of two-hundred-year-old idiocy calls into question every paleontological assertion he's ever made
>>
File: FASaSaUVgAgY0li.jpg (174 KB, 1330x674)
174 KB
174 KB JPG
>>3943401
Really depends on what dinosaurs he's talking about. Considering he specialized in early/mid cretaceous African dinosaurs like Spinosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Deltadromeus and etc. Don't be surprised for incoming mass upgrades. Ibrahim already believes Bahariasaurus/Deltadromeus is 12 meters+ according to his 2019 Kem Kem survey. If he comes out and blatantly says Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus are bigger than T. rex it wouldn't be out of the blue.
>>
>>3943407
Good thing scientists stick to what their latest research tell them instead of giving a shit about theropod fanboy slapfights
Ibrahim was the one that turned Spino into a leglet to begin with after all
>>
>>3943401
>that piece of two-hundred-year-old idiocy calls into question every paleontological assertion he's ever made
some of his earlier blunders were far worse. But I doubt anyone here has the technical knowledge to understand why we don't just take uneducated fossil dealer's word for much of anything in science.
>>
>>3943439
why are you like this
>>
>>3943447
Because it's honestly very strange that anon would distrust a scientist for using a bad weight estimator but be fine with them engaging in literal academic fraud. One of these things is a mistake, the other is a crime.
>>
how come no other marine reptiles reached the size of giant icthyosaurs
>>
File: you can't stop me.jpg (85 KB, 926x600)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
Kneel before the king spinocucks
>>
How will Mammals look 120 or so million years from now? (We're 65 million years into the Cenozoic for comparison this wouldn't been the equivalent of the early Jurassic for Dinosaur dominated Mesozoic)
>>
>>3943605
Going by mesozoic analogues the mammalian equivalent of ceratosaurs, carnosaurs, coelurosaurs, ornithopods, thyreophorans and all the other iconic dinosaurs have yet to appear.
Whales are our version of giant icthyosaurs and pinnipeds are potential plesiosaur analogues?
>>
>>3943514
monster of masonville > your theropodlet
>>
>>3943605
>Theropod kangaroos
>Indricothere giraffes
>Fully aquatic Plesiosaur-like pinnipeds
>Seal-like otters
>Giant armadillos and sloths 2.0
>Monkeys with vibrantly-colored fur analogous to birds
>Elephant-like animal descended from different mammal lineage
>Beaked mammals
>Same ol' caniforms and feliforms but more specialized
>More mega-rodents and mega-rabbits
>>
>>3943605
maybe they will loose hair because of global warming?
>>
>>3943605
mammals will be extinct long before that.

I'd give them another 200 years at best.
>>
File: 1626558054398.jpg (188 KB, 1536x864)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
*flaps*
>>
>>3943447
Autism.
>>
>>3943719
Whatever happened to Bob bakker anyways? He used to talk about 15 meter allosaurids and giant megalosaurids
>>
>>3943895
Mammals will always survive. Even if all megafauna mammals are wiped out, you'll still have all sorts of little mammals waiting for their time to recolonize the world, just as those who lived during the Mesozoic waited. And just as those little synapsid fuckers who lived at the end of the Permian survived the greatest mass extinction of all.
>>
>>3944222
The largest allosaurids top out around 7-8 tons (13-14 meters), anything bigger like 15 meters/10 tons+ is wishful thinking, there's a vertebrae from fench quarry twice the size of 7-8 meter allosaurus vertebrae
>>
>>3943847
Add frilled rhinos
>>
>>3944247
>you'll still have all sorts of little mammals
unwarranted optimism considering we currently have at least 3 different paths that would wipe out all mammals. How long do you think it'll be before someone uses one or more?

personally I'm guessing less than 200 years.
>>
>>3931105
>I am schizoanon, a highly intelligent individual
>it is only possible for ONE person at a time to disagree with me. I am very smart.
>>
>>3944817
I'd like to hear which paths you think these are, because I only really see two.
>>
>>3944222
He was on a podcast a few months back
>>
>>3944817
elaborate
>>
What’s your tyrannosaur? I was born in July so I got T. rex.
>>
>>3945457
I'm a theropodlet
fitting since I'm a manlet
>>
>>3944976
If you're really smart you'll find almost everyone disagrees with you.

But they don't usually disagree on exactly the same points using exactly the same words. That's weird even for dumb people.
>>
>>3930984
what turtles are these?
>>
>>3945657
mutant ninja teenagers
>>
>>3932032
Tell us your secrets, anon. I think you’re an asshole because you’re always condescending, but I recognize you know your shit and would love to hear any extraordinary thing you have to say.
>>
>>3934727
What do you think of Saurophaganax as a carcharodontosaurid and some of the jumbled material formerly referred to the S. maximus holotype being a giant Allosaurus maximus instead?

http://psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2019/12/is-saurophaganax-carcharodontosaurid_21.html?m=1
>>
>>3944261
>French Quarry allosaur
More about this?
>>
>>3946078
>Carpenter (1998, p. 418) notes that a June 1887 letter by Felch to Marsh mentions Allosaurus remains from the type locality of Allosaurus fragilis that are twice the size of USNM 4734 (the A. fragilis topotype). For example, the posterior dorsal of the large Allosaurus recorded from the Felch Quarry has a width of 8.66 inches (22 cm) compared to 5 in (12.7 cm) for a similar posterior vertebra of USNM 4734. Recall that the type locality of the diplodocine sauropod Supersaurus is stratigraphically a bit younger than the Felch Quarry, so the giant Allosaurus from the Felch Quarry and the stratigraphic position of the Dry Mesa Quarry make clear than gigantic Morrison dinos were distributed across the Morrison Formation, not the just the uppermost part of the Brushy Basin Member (the type material of "Epanterias amplexus" and Saurophaganax was found high in the Morrison).
>Carpenter, K (1998). Vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Morrison Formation near Canon City, Colorado. Modern Geology. 23: 407–426.
Keep in mind USNM 4734 is 7.6 m and 1.4 t
>>
>>3946055
I wonder how some cladograms get that result, must be the characters used
>>
>>3946115
It seems that the diagnostic Saurophaganax vertebra, if viewed alone, would immediately place it as a Carcharodontosaurid, but the rest of the skeleton is almost identical to Allosaurus. That blogpost posits that the S. maximus holotype is actually two different skeletons. The vertebra (and a couple other bones) are from a carcharodontosaurid while the Allosaurian material belongs to the same uppermost Brushy Basin taxon as “Epanterias“, the Monster of Masonville, Baker’s 1.2 m femur, etc.

So there’s both a giant Allosaur and a large carcharodontosaur present in the Stovall Quarry.
>>
>>3946123
Reminds of how Dandakosaurus recently found to be a chimera. I swear something similar is happening to Labocania too. The cranial elements are Carcharodontosaurid but the rest of the skeleton I'm not so sure. Could explain why it's so hard to classify.
>>
>>3946108
So this giant dorsal vertebra is lost? Lol this is Amphicoelias all over again and from the same Garden Park area as well.

Giant allosaurs are known from the same quarries as A. fragilis, Madsen lists a 12m animal in his osteology. So it seems that A. fragilis did hit giant sizes during their growth cycle. The thing about the uppermost BB is that every single allo we find is supersized.
>>
>>3946129
I don't have the book where that's sourced from but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more giant specimens mentioned in it.
>>
>>3946127
>The holotype, LACM 20877, was found in a layer of the La Bocana Roja Formation, dating from the late Campanian, about 73 million years old. It consists of a very fragmentary skeleton with skull elements, including a right quadrate, a left frontal, a piece of the left maxilla, a fragment of the dentarium, a chevron, the upper parts of both ischia, the middle shaft of the right pubis, most of the second right metatarsal, a pedal phalanx and several loose teeth.
>The elements were not articulated, dispersed over a surface of about two square metres, and strongly weathered. The remains were mixed with the ribs of Hadrosauroidea.
I doubt all the fragmentary remains are from one taxon
>>
>>3932061
Sauce
>>
>>3946277
Steven Brusatte mentioned it in his popsci book. There’s also
https://www.scielo.br/j/aabc/a/mbbSgZ6JjJg7zNHpJ7kfMxy/?lang=en
Which is also by Brusatte.
>>
>>3946290
The presidente prudente formation remains got reclassified as abelisaurs in 2017/2020 but not the marília formation remains iirc
>>
>>3946358
Source?
>>
>>3945457
I got the rainbow colored one
>>
>>3931907
That’s bullshit but I believe it.
So many fucking studies and shit are just in stasis waiting for some old fogey’s to die off like the animals they study so new shit can be reviewed because otherwise they’ll fight tooth and fucking NAIL against anything that could possibly change their life’s work.
Experience is nice but shit if it old people politics doesn’t hold us the fuck back.

I still remember reading a book about a guy saying “perhaps we’re being too hasty to accept plate tectonics guys”, I mean if concept that came out that year, fair, but shit.
>>
>>3943911
NOOOOOOO YOU CAN’T DO THAT
>>
>>3946417
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667117301854
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018220303151?via%3Dihub
I'm not sure if the second study looked at tooth crowns from the marila formation specifically (which is part of the bauru group) because the journal is paywalled and I can't read all of it
>>
>>3945877
baka
>>
>>3946026
>would love to hear any extraordinary thing you have to say.
I have nothing to say, thanks
>>3946055
>>3946108
>>3946115
>>3946123
I expect convergence within the taxon is more likely than derived characters appearing out of context
Carch's are descendants or sisters of allosaurids, the extra fin on the verts may be either synapomorphic or convergent. I favor convergence just based on geographic and temporal distance between the clades.
>>3946129
>Madsen lists a 12m animal in his osteology. So it seems that A. fragilis did hit giant sizes during their growth cycle
The irony is that all of them were juveniles based on histology. Even the monsters.
>>
>>3946599
>I favor convergence just based on geographic and temporal distance between the clades.
This is balanced some by the fact that the axial skeleton is extremely conserved in vertebrates.

I mean one wrong mutation in the skull or spine kills the fucking animal. So changes don't happen nearly as quickly as in apendicular elements.

so it's a bit of a toss up.

I don't expect a carcharodontosaur in the brushy basin but then Acrocanthosaurus came from somewhere, and spines don't evolve very quickly. The derived trait is itself extraordinary when you look at how conserved gigantic theropods are in general.
>>
>>3946602
The other option favored by Foster but rejected by Chure is that the trait is size-related.

with all due respect for Foster I have to take Chure's side on this. We have lots of gigantic Allosaurus material, and none of it has extra processes on the verts. Size simply doesn't seem to matter here.
>>
>>3946599
>>3946602
>>3946606
All of this could be solved by finding some juvenile carcharodontosaurid or Saurophaganax material in the Brushy Basin.

So far no luck. If they were present they were extremely fucking rare. We have lots of juvi Allosaurus. In fact all our Allosaurus material seems to be juveniles. But no carchs or babby phaganax
>>
>>3946610
>So far no luck.
which explains Foster's hypothesis.
Like Horner, he explains the lack of juvenile Saurophaganax and the lack of adult Allosaurus by proposing that they're different ontogenetic stages of the same animal.

seems unlikely, but it does certainly explain the data.
>>
>>3946448
Science advances at roughly the same rate that scientists die.
>>
>>3946055
>>3946123
the other problem with a carcharodontosaurid in the Brushy Basin aside from the near-complete lack of skeletal elements is the lack of teeth.

even if we say it was present and for whatever reason almost never fossilized, we'd have to explain why no shed teeth appear. Teeth are a much better record of theropods than skeletons. If it was there we should absolutely find teeth. Hundreds of teeth for every bone.

the only other possible explanation is that its teeth were identical and indistinguishable from Allosaurus. This is not a compelling idea.
>>
>>3946625
>the only other possible explanation is that its teeth were identical and indistinguishable from Allosaurus. This is not a compelling idea.
Since theropod teeth are generically diagnostic in most cases. That is, if the animal is a different genus the teeth are almost always different as well.

If there was a carch in the Brush Basin its teeth SHOULD NOT be identical to those of Allosaurus. That is a problem. The lack of unidentified gigantic theropod teeth in the formation points to a lack of unidentified gigantic theropod species in the formation.
>>
File: P7040007.jpg (1.94 MB, 3264x2448)
1.94 MB
1.94 MB JPG
>>3946629
Even if we never found a Torvosaurus bone we would know it exists because we find its teeth

Even if we never found a Ceratosaurus bone we'd know it exists because we find its teeth

We've never found carcharodontosaurid teeth in the formation, so it's a pretty safe bet it doesn't exist.
>>
File: acroskull.jpg (18 KB, 400x383)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>3946055
all of the above to say I tend to agree with Chure.

What we're seeing is likely not the surprise appearance of a novel carcharodontosaurid in the Brushy Basin.
Rather chronogenera stretching from Allosaurus jimmadsenii right up to Acrocanthosaurus atokensis. If it weren't for the geologic unconformity we'd probably have a spectacular record of the evolution of carcharodontosaurs. As it is it's still pretty freakin amazing.
>>
File: acro.jpg (96 KB, 960x720)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>3946650
of course all this means Saurophaganax was evolving into a carcharodonotosaurid.

whether it should be classified as the most derived allosaurid or the most basal carcharodontosaurid is arbitrary and meaningless. Is Archaeopteryx the most derived maniraptoran or the most basal avialan?
Gray area. They're both. the cutoff is arbitrary. From that point of view Saurophaganax may very well be the mystery carcharodontosaurid we're looking for. Not a mystery at all. Just a gray area. A transitional species.
>>
File: cope_l.jpg (173 KB, 606x780)
173 KB
173 KB JPG
>>3946026
>I recognize you know your shit
thanks

5 years studying geology in the best school in the world followed by 2 years dissecting humans, alligators, and nile monitors followed by 3 years sorting boxes in a dinosaur museum and at least someone on 4chan recognizes I know my shit.

Knowledge is painfully ephemeral, and I can't hand it off unless you've first spent years learning the basics. We can't meet at the garden gate until we've both walked up the garden path.
>>
File: to_err_is_human.jpg (380 KB, 1041x1188)
380 KB
380 KB JPG
>>3946055
>>3946123
So to sum up our choices are:

1. Ghost lineage. Phaganax is a chimera
2. Chronogenus. Phaganax is the carcharodontosaurid we deserve

Ghost lineages are usually betrayed by teeth. Bird teeth show up in the US millions of years before bird fossils. Teeth betray the presence of ghost theropods all the time.

Saurophaganax is the carcharodontosaurid we're looking for. Chronogenus. It looks like a freakin carch because it was evolving into one.
>>
>nobody has posted the new bri’ish spinosaurid duo yet
>>
>>3946675
>I'm so smart but I don't have to share the proof that I am, just trust me.
This level of elitism is truly astounding. I have genuinely never seen a self-proclaimed intelligentsia this self-absorbed and egotistical, and I was forced to watch an Inconvenient Truth. The more you suck your own dick while being an ass to everyone else, the more you convince people that you're full of shit like the other 10,000 phony baloney incel white supremacists on this website.
>>
>>3946599
>Carch appearing out of context
Well, it may be out of its range geographically, but it wouldn’t be out of context temporally.
https://www.academia.edu/25456862

>But no carchs or baby phaganax
But aren’t they from completely different stratigraphic assemblies anyways?

>if they were present, they were extremely rare
If they’re only found in the uppermost BB they wouldn’t have to be particularly rare in order to be undetected. The geochronology isn’t sussed out fully, but there’s less than half a dozen quarries associated with the tippy top. Giant allos are present in most, regular sized A.fragilis/Torvo/cerato are present in none, and this hypothetic Carch would be in one, maybe two. Doesn’t seem very rare to me, similar to cerato and torvo from lower beds

>the only way this would work is if the teeth were indistinguishable
>this is not a compelling argument
Oh? Less compelling than a random Allosaurian having a highly derived axial trait only found in a different family who should be evolving right around this time? Perhaps the distinct Carch tooth shape is more derived than the axial elements. After all, no Carch teeth are known from Tendaguru, yet they’ve got a Carch anyways.

You could argue that the very scant material from Veterupristisaurus is undiagnostic, but that neural spine looks pretty similar to acro to me.
>>
>>3946935
>But aren’t they from completely different stratigraphic assemblies anyways?
no
>there’s less than half a dozen quarries associated with the tippy top.
most dinosaur fossils found in the BB aren't in quarries.
>regular sized A.fragilis/Torvo/cerato are present in none
not true but I'd have to dig out Foster's comprehensive censuses to cite examples.

More importantly they're common enough finds outside of quarries.

As you say stratigraphy is a problem, there's no real distinction between lower and upper Brushy Basin, and not a lot of work tying multiple sites together by age.
>>
>>3942112
>unranked clade vs an infraorder vs a clade that contains several infraorders in itself
That's not really an accurate comparison
>>
>>3946728
>two baryonychine genera from the same formation
What are the chances Cristatusaurus is valid now?
>>
>>3946984
>Not true
No material of the lower BB gang is known from any site that contains the giant Allosaurian, except for shed allo teeth, which are easily attributed to aforementioned Allosaurian. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I’ve gone through Foster’s entire book, and every single mention of discoveries being from “the top of the BB” never include A.fragilis, torvo, or cerato. Now, this doesn’t mean that some of the sites with these taxa aren’t upper BB with stratigraphy too poor to immediately label it as such, but there seems to be a clear delineation and exclusivity between sites that contain the lower BB predator assemblage and sites that contain the giant end-Morrison Allosaur and ‘phaganax whether they be the same animal or not.

>but more importantly they’re common enough outside of quarries
Any from the uppermost BB? I doubt even Foster knows.
>>
>>3938470
Post it or you're a square
>>
>>3946650
Allosaurs and Carcharodontosaurs only have general basic allosauroid features in common (i.e flattened, sharp teeth and wide gapes) but otherwise they were clearly different kinds of animals doing different things >>3932852
>>
>>3947045
That's why they evolved into carcharodontosaurs and changed
>>
>>3947004
>except for shed allo teeth, which are easily attributed to aforementioned Allosaurian
Yeah, that's one significant problem with calling it a new genus. The teeth are indistinguishable from Allosaurus Sp.
>but I’ve gone through Foster’s entire book, and every single mention of discoveries being from “the top of the BB” never include A.fragilis, torvo, or cerato.
As I recall he doesn't count teeth. And to be fair Torvo and Cerato aren't known from most places except as teeth.
>there seems to be a clear delineation and exclusivity between sites that contain the lower BB predator assemblage and sites that contain the giant end-Morrison Allosaur and ‘phaganax whether they be the same animal or not.
I believe that's outdated. Phaganax has been found in the middle BB. So biostratigraphy fails and there is overlap between the faunas. To my knowledge no gigantic allosaurid has been found in the Salt Wash Member, but that's where the delineation ends.
>Any from the uppermost BB? I doubt even Foster knows.
He's got unpublished censuses and so do I. Stuff that isn't from quarries.

The larger problem is the Brushy Basin varies from about 30-130 feet thick and we know the top is missing everywhere. It's gone. So matching up "the top" of the member relies primarily on faunas that are generally quite small and presumably incomplete. It's also circular to use biostratigraphy to determine a fauna.

Like I can't say "There's no A. fragilis in the Upper Fauna," and then say, "These strata aren't Upper Fauna because A. fragilis is present."

That's obviously circular.
>>
>>3947051
That's really unlikely considering there were carcharodontosaurs living at the same time as allosaurs in the jurassic and that would imply carcharodontosaurs evolved into allosaurs then back into carcharodontosaurs again (regaining their ancestral features) and evolution doesn't work like that
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility
>>
>>3947053
>that would imply carcharodontosaurs evolved into allosaurs then back into carcharodontosaurs again
or that there's a ghost lineage

or that the carcharodontosaur is incorrectly classified.

There's a few possibilities there.
>>
>>3947055
I remember scratching my head when seeing phylograms with carcharodontosaurs closer to coelurosaurs than allosaurs it's fucked up
>>
>>3946767
>The more you suck your own dick while being an ass to everyone else, the more you convince people that you're full of shit like the other 10,000 phony baloney incel white supremacists on this website.
That's the joke.

It doesn't matter how I act towards you. You can't be sure you're talking to me whether I'm nice or not.

The only way you can verify the quality of the information I present is to know something about the topic yourself. You don't, so not only can you not recognize me unless I allow you, you also can't judge the quality of my posts to tell if I'm larping or not. And that's funny.
>>
>>3947056
Yeah we've discussed that before iirc

I think it was Paul that pointed out all the supposedly diagnostic traits in derived theropods are actually just derived traits found in all lineages. It might've been Holtz that said it though. If that's the case it's double irony since Holtz is responsible for most of the diagnoses we currently use.
>>
>>3947057
> based faggot psyopping on /an/

heccin kekerino
>>
>>3947059
Something tells me megaraptora is the key to solving all this.
>>
I agree 100%

but I also think there's probably a shitload of theropod lineages we simply haven't found yet. Many we'll never find. If nothing else megaraptora is proving the weakness in our current theories.
>>
>>3947069
>>3947068
>>
>>3947069
If anything basal tetanurans are even worse than derived theropod phylogeny
>>
File: Dilophosaurus_skull.jpg (257 KB, 951x744)
257 KB
257 KB JPG
>>3947074
It gives me a headache to think about.

But it is sorta interesting how the premaxillary rosette and diastema keeps showing up around that time.
>>
>>3930984
I don't understand crocodile anatomy
>>
>>3931093
Spinosaurs might have survived to the maastrictian in kenya
>>
>>3947097
You've come to the right place!
>>
>>3942883
Giga holotype is 8.0 tons per Snively so the paratype should be greater than 8.3 tons
>>
>>3947004
The other thing worth noting on the BB is that the upper part preserves almost no dinosaur bones. So we have a preservation bias going on.

Almost all of the Allosaurus bones and teeth and sites I've personally seen are in the lower to middle Brushy Basin. If I'm looking for a dinosaur in the Morrison I usually start by identifying the Salt Wash/Brush Basin border and then hunting between that and about 30 feet up. The Salt Wash and the upper BB are both relatively devoid of bones. They're also at least slightly metamorphosed while the lower to middle BB is essentially raw sediments with significantly less remineralization.

Not to say the upper BB or lower Salt Wash are completely devoid of bones. Just that about 80% of Morrison dinos come from the lower to middle BB. Including a buttload of Allosaurus.
>>
>>3947004
>>3947330
>They're also at least slightly metamorphosed while the lower to middle BB is essentially raw sediments
Another result of this is a collection bias.

The lower to middle BB preserves a lot more bones and a lot of smaller bones. But even when we find bones in the upper BB we often just leave them because they're usually in extremely dense, well cemented conglomerates and sandstones vs. the lower stuff in mudstones and siltstones.

The lower material is generally easier to dig. More importantly it's easier to preserve. Digging bones out of really hard rock is time consuming and often destroys the bone. So unless something in the upper BB is of very high scientific value we'll usually just photograph it and leave it where it is. Those finds don't usually appear in any faunal census. So the hardness of much of the rock in the upper BB means even when we find bones they're less likely to be collected or counted.
>>
>>3942863
Torvosaurus isn't the largest Megalosaurid. That's the indeterminate Tendaguru Megalosaurid.
>>
>>3947004
>>3947333
One example of this you're probably familiar with is the Dinosaur Ridge Visitor Center Allosaurus.

The boulder with 5 Allosaurus verts was originally found at the top of the Dakota Hogback on the Morrison side at a location reliably dated to the upper Brushy Basin. It is a small Allosaurus from the upper BB.
But it's not in a museum because the rock is pretty hard and the bones aren't anything special.

So it's at least one example of a small Allosaurus from the upper BB that doesn't appear in Foster's censuses or any censuses anywhere. It simply doesn't get counted even though it would seem to disprove any idea that Allosaurus didn't survive to the end of the Morrison deposition. There are many such cases out there. Stuff that exists but isn't counted anywhere.
>>
>>3947340
>There are many such cases out there. Stuff that exists but isn't counted anywhere.
And to some extent it's a paleontologist's job to know where these things are and also not to talk about them.
I don't need a bunch of bone hunters raiding dinosaur sites I know of that have never been published. But I'm aware of them. I know they exist. And sometimes I know they disagree or disprove current faunas and censuses. But unless a museum or university wants to drop a couple million dollars excavating that sort of thing they remain a secret. But they're a secret paleontologists are aware of.
>>
>>3947343
>But unless a museum or university wants to drop a couple million dollars excavating that sort of thing they remain a secret.
And this is why these threads are both fun and frustrating for a paleontologist. As you mentioned.

We often know the answers to the questions posed here but we can't say them because of either site security or academic embargo or both.
>>
Got a server on Ark mobile, hard mode europe, pvp, Bullets and Bandaids is the name "band" is the pass word. Unofficial.
>>
>>3947340
>It simply doesn't get counted even though it would seem to disprove any idea that Allosaurus didn't survive to the end of the Morrison deposition
To play devil's advocate here

None of the bones are diagnostic even to genus. So it remains possible that the small Allosaurus from Morrison is actually a juvenile Saurophaganax. Also since the rock didn't come from a modern quarry and wasn't collected by an institution it's possible that the location, stratigraphy, and dating of the material is incorrect. However I don't personally believe any of that to be true.

This is almost certainly Allosaurus, probably A. fragilis per Madsen Jr. And I don't doubt at all that it's from the upper Brushy Basin based on both the hardness of the matrix and the fact that I know of other A. fragilis material from the upper Brushy Basin. Allosaurus is extremely common in the Kimmeridgian Morrison and not particularly rare in the Tithonian. Just based on stuff I've seen but never published.
>>
>>3947004
The upshot of all this is when we say Foster or me or Chure or anyone doesn't list A. fragilis from the upper Brushy Basin faunas,

it's because the A. fragilis from upper Brushy Basin faunas mostly consist of either teeth or isolated specimens like that: >>3947340

It's not that they don't exist. They're just not in museums because they're a pain in the ass to collect and store. And if they're not in a museum they don't count.
>>
>>
>>3947363
can anyone do this but for the isle or path of titans
>>
>>3947662
what are the chances tyrannotitan-giganotosaurus-mapusaurus forms one anagenic lineage?
>>
>>3947888
Where does Carcharodontosaurus fit into this?
>>
>>3947919
apparently carcharodontosaurus might have lived in brazil
>>
>>3931314
someday we'll find a generic carnosaur with a huge sail that looks like retro spinosaurus
>>
>>3930984
How fast did most dino species actually went extinct? If we take the meteor impact theory. I mean, some survived for some time and even gave rise to birds, but what about others. Did they went extinct in decades, hundreds or thousands of years or more after the impact?
>>
>>3948255
All non-avian dinosaurs were dead within a year or so.

Birds had evolved from dinosaurs before the Cretaceous/Paleogene mass extinction, and in deed, most birds died during that event as well.

Within 2000-2500 miles of the blast site, basically everything above ground that wasn't shadowed by a mountain or something died in minutes. Then the ejecta that had been blown into space by the impact began to reenter Earth's atmosphere all around the world starting about an hour later (and lasting for probably about a week) and this continuous bombardment of smaller pieces created so much radiant heat that by the second day, every forest in the world was on fire and many ecosystems were essentially broiled to death.

The fine particles from the impact and the smoke from the forest fires combined in the upper atmosphere to create a cloud deck that blocked more than 90% of solar radiation for several years to as much as a decade, which caused most of the plants that had sprouted immediately after the fires died back to die as well. Mushrooms and other fungi would have exploded across the land, utilizing all of the trapped resources and not having to compete with the plants for water or space. Decomposter arthropods had a hay-day. Any surviving dinosaurs are starving now, or scavenging the carcasses of the animals that died in more locally devastated areas, but those carcasses are a perishable resource and are rapidly becoming inedible. Most mammals are starving, most birds are starving, food chains in the oceans are disrupted, killing mosasaurs, ammonites, sharks, bony fish, corals, molusks, and crustaceans.

All surviving birds are descended from seed eaters that survived on that less perishable resource. All mammals are descended from burrowing species that ate seeds and insects.
>>
>>3948010
So the difference between giga and carcha is like the difference between a tiger and a lion?
>>
why didn't ammonites survive bros
>>
>>3942112
>>3942114
>>3942128
carnosaurs are overachievers with their relative abundance of large theropods and megatheropods
>>
>>3947036
>square
>>
comfy



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.