Why do people hate feathered dinosaurs?

>>2043753
they don't.

Because they grew up with the alternative. They don't appreciate their giant, killing machine fantasy lizards being turned upside down on them.
If they don't like them thats fine. I love birds, and I'd be happy if every single 'dinosaur' had feathers but I appreciate the old school raptors too in the same way I do dragons and unicorns. Not just talking about scales vs feathers either but dexterity, almost prehensile tails, wrong posture but it still looks cool, etc.

>>2043766
>Because they grew up with the alternative.
bullshit.
Unless you think everyone arguing is over 40.

Because movie

>>2043772
Nearly everyone over 20 grew up with non-feathered dinos, m8. Sure, some nerds knew they were feathered, but most were quite happy with the old Jurassic Park look and killer giant lizards.

>>2043797
literally every dinosaur encyclopedia I have written after 1995 has feathered dinosaurs.

I suppose you could somehow miss that fact growing up, but those people aren't interested in dinosaurs and really aren't likely to be arguing about them online.

In fact I doubt many people over the age of 12 argue the point at all.
Ever.

>>2043799
It's more about normal people growing up with movies and video games instead of encyclopedias.

>>2043799
>every dinosaur encyclopaedia I have written
the fact you write dinosaur encyclopaedias means you definitely fit in the 'some nerds' generalisation

>>2043847
not the same person but I'm over 9000% sure dude meant "literally every dinosaur encyclopedia I have (written after 1995) has feathered dinosaurs."

>>2043753
>>b-b-b-but muh nostalgia, muh feelings, global warming is a myth, pluto is a planet, and the government is out to get me

>>2043845
>normal people
>arguing about dinosaur feathers
choose one.
>>2043847
being intentionally obtuse and pedantic makes you the nerd here, buddy.

Because feathers are hard to animate

>>2045341
Not sure, never saw people complaining about animating birds all that much.

>>2043753
They don't, people hate feather-kin shoehorning them on every single dinosaur, even those proven to be scaled just because some had feathers and are related to birds.

It's completely unscientific and is just going to another reactionary extreme.

>>2045387
I've not seen that happen nearly as often I have seen "Science killed dinosaurs, why isn't pluto a planet any more" type bitching because some of what people learned as kids has been proven false and childhood memories are somehow more important than actual fact.

>>2043799
I'm all for feathered dinosaurs, but I was massively into them when I was little (I'm 24 now) and don't remember seeing a single mention of feathered dinosaurs when I was a kid.

>>2045421
Did you read?

>>2045424
My bad, I somehow read written as read.

Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers
They'd be too big for them due to the environment they lived in!
Their young PROBABLY did
I just hate people just assuming ALL tyrannosaurs had feathers just because of yutyrannus

>>2045439
>They'd be too big for them due to the environment they lived in!
A buddy of mine was arguing this point with Tom Holtz the other day and he reminded us that the environment they lived in spanned clear from mexico to halfway through Canada.

not that I disagree with you, but he has a point. They lived in a lot of different climates including some cold ones.

also if Nanotyrannus is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus then they didn't have feathers when they were young.

>>2045452
dinosaur body coverings probably varied wildly depending on their environment, like modern animals. a tyrannosaurus species in a warmer climate probably had no feathers at all, given its size and how easily it could overheat. Could easily see one with a light coating in chillier parts of the world.

>>2043863
>pluto
I never understood this comparison to dinosaurs with feathers. Dinosaurs having feathers is a scientific fact, while pluto's planethood or lack thereof is based entirely on semantics.

>>2045523
>a tyrannosaurus species in a warmer climate probably had no feathers at all,
there was only one species of Tyrannosaurus.

>>2043772
I didn't learn about it til recently

>>2043753
Because jurassic park taught them that raptors were huge big creatures with the brain that rivals a human. Reality unfortunately is not as exciting as Hollywood sometimes.

>>2045801
yeah, looking at those JP raptors it's funny...
their brain was actually smaller than one of their eyes. That's a lot of empty skull.

>>2045801
Actually the raptor portrayed in the movies are utah raptors, not velociraptors.

>>2045424
>you didn't read, but just watched cartoons & shit
This. I am a half-decade older than him yet I remember (used, and therefore even older) Dino field guides talking about feathers and warm-bloodedness.

>>2046401
I'm even older, I can remember when the Alvarez hypothesis for the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs was published.

I can also remember before any feathered non-avian dinosaurs had been found. Back before the concept had entered the public mind at all.

I'm pretty old though. Far too old to cling to my childhood ideas and try to deny reality for the sake of sentiment.

>>2046369
The raptors portrayed in the movies were generically engineered theme park monsters.

>>2046401
What year? I read everything my town had on dinos from 97-99, but only a handful of books speculated on feathers, most didn't mention them at all or only in reference to archaeopteryx. Most did include a mention of warmbloodedness though.

>>2046369
Everyone who has no interest in real dinosaurs will call them velociraptors because thats what they have been addressed as in all the movies

>>2043753
It's a Utah raptor in the movie. Don't know why they called them velociraptor, but probably because everything is sexier without Mormons.

>>2046454
>Don't know why they called them velociraptor
probably because that's what they were called in the books and the first screenplay, both of which were written several years BEFORE UTAHRAPTOR WAS DISCOVERED.

>>2045523
>a tyrannosaurus species in a warmer climate probably had no feathers at all
And why would that be? Unless feather are an insurmountable hindrance, it's sexual selection that will decide.

>>2046535
>Unless feather are an insurmountable hindrance
they would be.

The mechanics of cooling an animal of that size in a hot climate are staggering. As adults they presumably weren't warm-blooded anymore because they'd overheat and cook. Environmental heat and heat from normal metabolism would've been more than enough to keep them way too hot.

perhaps they only moved around at night, spending the hottest part of the day in the shade or near water. But even then their sheer size would've been enough to kill them. It's a problem.

Very few dinosaurs had feathers, they had proto-feathers. Somewhere between feathers and scales. The problem is there's not way to really predict what awesome scale adaptations dinosaurs could have had. Downy fur like feathers were probably prevalent too.
Just putting bird feathers on shit is stupid.

>>2043753
I grew up on scaled dinos and I fuckin love feathered dinos too. I loved the JP Velociraptors but I love the real turkey sized featherball that is the actual Velociraptor more. Some people however seem to have trouble liking feathers on certain/most dinosaurs, especially those in the Tyrannosauridae family.

>>2046542
>But even then their sheer size would've been enough to kill them.
Not even close. Tyrannosaurus would have been fine.
We had sauropods which were a fuckload more massive that were apparently pretty active animals and they did okay.

>>2046644
They probably weren't that active, if nothing else they weighed too much to move quickly. It would be physically impossible for them to run.

also notice their lack of feathers....

and remember, even little bitty humans die of heat stroke all the time.

File: eos01717_327w.jpg (32KB, 327x327px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 327x327px

>>2045439
>they would overheat

You seem to have forgotten that feathers aren't fur, they work in different ways.

>>2046849
>still thinks feathers cool an animal off

>>2046855
Why not?

>>2046855
Also, explain how tropical, desert, etc. birds aren't naked at all.

>>2043753
Because they never existed and idiots like you keep shoving them down peoples throats.

>>2046912
because insulating a heat source keeps heat in, it doesn't cool it off.
>>2046914
they're a few thousand times smaller than a Tyrannosaurus for one thing.

also they're often inactive during the heat of the day, they live in shade, and have a much larger pulmonary epithelium and greater tidal volume than mammals for example.

and being naked would probably kill them since deserts often freeze at night.

>>2046454
There are also velociraptors in one of the movies.

>>2046369
Utahraptor wasn't yet discovered at the time the movie was being made. The JP raptors are based on Deinonychus. Michael Crichton chose to call them Velociraptor in the original novel because he thought it was a coole... err, I mean "more dramatic" name.

>>2046994

What makes you think these strategies for keeping heat away weren't present in dinosaurs?

>>2047069
they absolutely were and still are.

they just probably weren't enough to cool off something the size of a Tyrannosaurus if it had a thick covering of feathers, lived in a hot climate and hunted during the day.

>>2043863
Bruh I prefer non-feathered dinosaurs (I realize and accept that they weren't though) but don't drag Pluto into this. That's just some rock someone decided to give a special name.

>>2047070
Why do you think that Tyrannosaurus was diurnal?

What would be the maximum body temperature, with which a Tyrannosaurus could thrive anyway?

>>2047070
If tyrannosaurus had feather covering, it would need some bizarre ways to thermoregulate.

maybe it's legs were totally bare, and it shat/pissed on them to cool them off

>>2047047
Wasn't there a debate in the scientific community at the time about whether or not the Deinonychus should be considered separate from the Velociraptor?

>>2045439
You know what was big, lived in a hot enviorment and always gets decipted with fuzzy integument? Ground sloths.

Heck, i bet megatherium had a much lower surface/mass ratio than tyrannosaurus, but nobody complains when someone paints it being fuzzy.

Not saying tyrannosaurus itself did have feathers, but we need more evidence until we can say that it definitely didnt.

>>2047119
I think its a little silly to outright deny feathers being on an adult tyrannosaurus. Probably had them on the back and shoulders if you ask me.

Also is there any evidence T. Rex was completely endothermic? Last I heard it was somewhere in between where the vitals were heated.

File: 1433823317809.jpg (43KB, 540x313px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 540x313px

>>2043753
cuz this shit is just weird

>>2047340
>i bet megatherium had a much lower surface/mass ratio than tyrannosaurus
you could probably calculate it out, but the square-cube law makes it extremely unlikely.

>>2047085
>Why do you think that Tyrannosaurus was diurnal?
no particular adaptations to nocturnal activity.
>What would be the maximum body temperature,
less than the air temperature in the daytime during summer over much of its range.

probably not over 100 F. Most likely much lower just to reduce the risk of overheating.

>>2046679
Yes, but iirc they would have needed to be eating so they must have been moving around a lot.
I'd assume something as enormous as a titanosaur would hold in much more heat than even a thickly feathered tyrannosaurus, but it seemed to exist just fine.

>>2047476
Im basing that statement on andrea cau saying that a 2 ton elephant had a lower surface/mass ratio than a tyrannosaurus, now i might have misinterpreted, but as far as i see, a megatherium is much more "built like a brick" than a tyrannosaurus and might have handled fur just fine, so why couldnt a tyrannosaurus have feathers without overheating?

>>2045353
Because birds actually exist in our future timeline doc.

File: tumblr_njxfywwhkp1scll6no4_1280[1].jpg (99KB, 822x1094px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 822x1094px

>>2043753
But fluffy T-rex, is the best T-rex.

Not shitposting, really I like feathered dinosaurs.

File: Tyrannosaurus_rex_mmartyniuk[1].png (430KB, 1975x672px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1975x672px

>>2047705
Here a version more realist, in my opinion.

I alwas think in the T-rex as a giant vulture, always looking for corpses and stealing prey to smaller predators.

>>2047707
T-rex definitely hunted (in addition to scavenging?), since there are triceratops bones with healed t-rex bites.

>>2047707
No reason to think it was a giant scavenger, there is direct evidence for it preying on other animals, so the scavenger hypothesis is way off.

And while it likely ran a bit faster or slower than a olympic sprinter, its prey base wasnt very fast either. Also, predator doesnt need to be faster than its prey to catch it, komodo dragons prey on deer just fine, even though the deer can outrun it.

But tyrannosaurus likely fed on carcasses when given the chance, its good sense of smell might have helped finding corpses, so presuming it was in some ways akin to vultures is not unreasonable.

>>2047715
it was probably something like a bear in that regard, both hunting and nabbing kills from smaller predators

>>2043753

To be fair, like the second scene of Jurassic Park is Sam Neil explaining why a giant feathery turkey would be scary.

Not saying Jurassic Park isn't responsible, but Michael Crichton wasn't a gibbering retard at least.

>>2047727
Well, i cant think of any extant predator that doesnt do that, so yeah it was probably like that.

>>2047699
>Im basing that statement on andrea cau saying that a 2 ton elephant had a lower surface/mass ratio than a tyrannosaurus
yes, that statement is incorrect.

>>2047764
Care to explain why its incorrect?

Heres the post im referring to: http://theropoda.blogspot.com.br/2010/06/motivazione-teorica-per-la-presenza-di.html


So a 2 ton elephant has a ratio of 55 square cm per kg and an tyrannosaurus has a ratio of 93.

And here it says the estimated weight for megatherium is 4 tons: http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app46/app46-173.pdf

Shouldnt the more "compact" megatherium have a lower surface/mass ratio than a tyrannosaurus?

Even if its ratio was lower, i dont see why a tyrannosaurus should overheat with feathers if something the size of megatherium could handle having large amounts of fur. As far as im aware feathers can also cool down a animal, though i dont have any idea how they do it.

File: the_quilled_slasher_by_alexanderlovegrove-d8xadgd.jpg (236KB, 1280x726px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1280x726px

Feathers or quills?

>>2048190
>Care to explain why its incorrect?
main problem is he grossly underestimated the mass of T. rex. 9 tons is an accepted figure.

other than that his source for surface area of an elephant isn't actually a source so we don't know if it counted ears and tail and such,
and his method of determining the area of T. rex is crude, a mistake of even 1 cm is going to have huge affects when multiplied by 900.

>>2048190
>Shouldnt the more "compact" megatherium have a lower surface/mass ratio than a tyrannosaurus?
no
>Even if its ratio was lower, i dont see why a tyrannosaurus should overheat with feathers if something the size of megatherium could handle having large amounts of fur.
depends on the climate and activity level of the animal. If rex stands by a tree and eats leaves all day it will probably be fine.
>As far as im aware feathers can also cool down a animal, though i dont have any idea how they do it.
If you read the study on that you'll find they don't. Animals cool down by exposing or shading skin using feathers. The feathers themselves don't cool the animal. The bare skin does.

File: pluto.jpg (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

Why do astronomers hate Pluto?

It's messed up how they've treated it.

>>2046411
>generically

Oh how right you are

File: image_72.jpg (61KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x650px

>>2048371
>>2048371
>anthropomorphising dwarf planets

IFLS-tier

>>2048316
>>2048318
Thanks for replying, i cant argue about him underestimating the mass of tyrannosaurus.

Can you give me the link to this study you talked about?

File: 5sXu3.jpg (333KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1200x1200px

No idea.

File: download (4).jpg (51KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x600px

These guys have feathers.

File: 1349490146712.jpg (398KB, 1300x1029px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1300x1029px

>>2049732
They don't have nearly enough of them, though.

Because that grind was a pain.

>>2043753
I don't. I think it looks cool. Would not give them much protection from others though

>>2047213
No.
Crichton got that from one of Greg Paul's notions that Deinonychus was a junior synonym of Velociraptor. Considering that Greg Paul is a paleoartist and not a paleontologist, this wasn't exactly the most well-founded supposition.

File: Kulindadromeus.jpg (214KB, 1280x818px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1280x818px

>>2045439
You seem to be forgetting that T. rex was a derived coelurosaur and second-cousin to the maniraptors.

All of its closest relatives are groups which include members known to be fully feathered.
While Tyrannosaurus skin impressions exist which show mosaic tuberculate scale coverage, they're all from either the ventral surface of the tail or the ankles.
This is consistent with more recent integument models based on Kulindadromeus and various feathered theropods.
Feathers on the dorsal and lateral surfaces of the neck, back, body, and thighs, reticulata on the tail and lower legs.

As for that bull-wack about "being too big," feathers wouldn't impede one bit with T. rex's ability to regulate its temperature. Considering the range of environments that sexy rexy inhabited (dry savannah, grasslands, desert scrub, temperate rainforest, etc.), having a dorsal coat of feathers to block sunlight and shed rain would be incredibly advantageous.

tl;dr, learn something about physiology and phylogenetics before shooting your mouth off.

>>2050040
>Greg Paul is a paleoartist and not a paleontologist
he's both.

all paleontologists are paleoartists. a couple paleoartists are paleontologists.

>>2050080
Still though, it was pretty much just a personal notion that he vocalized a lot.

>>2050091
it's still in play, just like synonymizing Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Or Horner's stuff with a number of species and genera.

This stuff goes through fads where one generation names all these new taxa and the next generation synonymizes them. Brontosaurus has recently been resurrected, so you can tell which part of the cycle we're currently in. There will probably come a day when Deinonychus is once again called Velociraptor.

>>2050068
>You seem to be forgetting that T. rex was a derived coelurosaur and second-cousin to the maniraptors
you seem to be putting a lot of faith in something that changes every time a researcher dies.

>they're all from either the ventral surface of the tail or the ankles.
no they're not.

even ignoring the new ones from last year which you seem to have missed, only about half of the wyrex skin comes from the dorsal surface (tail) and none of it comes from the ankles.

when you have to lie and make stuff up to support your view, you might very well be wrong.

>>2050103
>only about half of the wyrex skin comes from the dorsal surface
>ventral
fix'd

>>2050099
>Brontosaurus has recently been resurrected, so you can tell which part of the cycle we're currently in
Not even remotely similar. Brontosaurus' taxonimic resurrection is because of a MASSIVE and extensive anatomical assay of apatosaurine sauropods.
The species in question, [Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus] excelsus, was never dubious; science just wasn't sure whether or not it warranted a new genus or not until now.

Brontosaurus' type specimen has always represented a new species, and now we're positive it represents a new genus.

That story about the skull is a myth.

>>2050103
>[Citation Needed]

>>2050108
>The species in question, [Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus] excelsus, was never dubious
it was synonymized for most of 30 years, of course it was dubious.

>Brontosaurus' type specimen has always represented a new species
which has also been synonymized on occasion since the differences are considered by some to be purely size-related or normal variation.

>>2050103
...do you actually have a reply, or are you just gonna stick with "ur wrong becuz I'm say so?"

>>2050111
Larson, Neal L. (2008). "One hundred years of Tyrannosaurus rex: the skeletons". In Larson, Peter; and Carpenter, Kenneth, editors. Tyrannosaurus Rex, The Tyrant King. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–55.

>>2050119
I did reply.
anyone that cares to can see that you incorrectly located the known skin impressions and then based your whole argument on that "error."

we'll pretend you made the mistake by accident and didn't just lie to support your preconceived views.

>>2043753
Because paleoartists are fucking terrible at depicting them in anything resembling a realistic fashion and insist on making them look like neon peacocks.

>>2045742
And it didn't fucking have feathers.

>>2047358
What's retarded is feathermorons like you continuing to insist that Tyrannosaurs had feathers when there's zero evidence they did and ample evidence they did not.

Just another thread proving that featherfags are truly the worst people.

File: image.jpg (329KB, 2000x1465px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 2000x1465px

Holy shit, a board where feathered dinosaur discussion doesn't devolve into a shitstorm. A thread on /toy/ about a guy doing a feathered raptor Kickstarter made the OP rage quit.

JP style raptors are cool and will always be cool but saying that science is wrong because you don't like it is stupid.

File: dakotaraptor_by_tuomaskoivurinne-d9hbmsv.png (1MB, 900x613px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x613px

>>2051319
The thing I like about feathered raptors is that they somehow look more real. They don't look like movie monsters anymore, but like actual animals, as they were. It's somehow more profound and cooler to me that way.

>>2050254
Does Yutyrannus huali not count? I'm not a dinofag so I don't care either way but is in that family. I like seeing dinos with or without feathers as long as they at least try to get the placement right.

>>2051362
>is in that family.
maybe.

not that it matters since Tyrannosaurids are known to lack feathers so even if Yutyrannus were an ancestor that just means they lost feathers at some point.

>>2051367

how are they KNOWN not to have feathers?

>>2051433
multiple skin impressions from tens of individuals of at least 4 different species of Tyrannosaurid, representing all parts of the body, none of which have feathers.

and that's just counting the stuff that has been formally described and curated in a museum. The private market has hundreds more impressions of varying provenance.

>>2051362
>muh Yutyrannus
Featherfaggots are so predictable. Chinese fossils don't count period because Chinks forge fossils as a business.

>>2051447
>Chinese fossils don't count
said no paleontologist ever.

>>2043753
ITT: People who don't understand phylogenetic bracketing use mental gymnastics to pretend Jurassic Park was right.

>>2050103
>you seem to be putting a lot of faith in something that changes every time a researcher dies.
No, the Coelurosaurian classification is pretty damn solid. You might want to read something about this subject you're pretending to know about. Like, literally the first and most basic thing.
>the new ones from last year
Can you be more specific?

>>2051505
>the Coelurosaurian classification is pretty damn solid.
The diagnostic traits are either size-related, normal derived traits in all theropod lineages, or absent in Tyrannosaurids. Or all of the above.
>Can you be more specific?
sure, but for someone suggesting I go read up on coelurosaurs I'd expect you to be aware already.

>>2051542
goto>>2051487

>>2051562
phylogenetic bracketing only works if your phylogeny is accurate.

we already know tyrannosaurids lacked feathers, so if your bracketing says they have them you might need to take a moment and double check.

>>2051565
>we already know tyrannosaurids lacked feathers
Again, from. fucking. what. All you've done is make some halfassed mentions of "skin impressions" without so much as a link, pic related, or even a mention of the area of the body the skin impressions are attributed to aside from "ventral tail" and "not ankles."

As for your "T. rex wasn't a coelurosaur" schtick, please tell me where Tyrannosauroidea allegedly rests.

Other anons and I have asked you to put your money where your mouth is and all you've done so far is mumble about it being in your other pants.

>>2051574
I don't really bother because I've been over this with you before, several times.

in fact you can find citations of half of the known tyrannosaurid skin impressions listed in the Yutyrannus paper.

this stuff isn't hard to find, and if you're going to seriously try to argue against it you should probably know what you're up against and where.

similar to the coelurosauria thing. I spoke to the diagnosis, a point you didn't respond to.

I assume you're not familiar with it so we don't really have anything to talk about there.

>>2051448
Said plenty of paleontologists.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/

http://english.ivpp.cas.cn/ns/es/201306/P020130614511958187570.pdf
And I quote: "Suspicions dog any specimens from the fabulous fossil fields in northeast China's Liaoning province"

>>2051487
>Says someone who thinks the entire Archosaur line has been accurately mapped
Eat shit, dumbfuck.

Again, featherfags are the worst. You're just a bunch of credulous, idiot trendy hipsters who want to hop on yet another trend's dick. Some Dinosaurs were feathered, MOST WERE NOT. Get the fuck over it already.

>>2051565
>phylogenetic bracketing only works if your phylogeny is accurate.
This.

>>2051580
Everyone has with every featherfaggot. Featherfaggots are always going to believe that T-Rex was a hairy Emu chick because it's "different" and they think it makes them special. You're never going to convince them otherwise. If we literally brought a T-Rex through a hole in time and taught it fucking English and it testified in person that none of its species ever had feathers, featherfaggots would claim the T-Rex didn't know what it was talking about.

>>2051580
>>2051602

So the crux of your argument is that Dinosaur phylogeny is completely wrong...because...reasons...okay.

>>2047471
2 much!

>>2047715
well also theres no other big carnivores to steal from in rexes environment Dakotaraptor and (maybe) Nanotyrannus where far too small to tackle the likes of Triceratops and Edmontosaurus so unless those two suffered a lot of sudden heart attacks rex would go hungry if it didn't actively hunt

>>2046855
Feathers and fur can keep animals warm by building an isolating air layer but this also works as a shield agains a higher temperature in the environment.

File: I HAVE A MIGHTY NEED.gif (1MB, 1165x562px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1165x562px

>>2043753
>MFW modern crocodilians have dormant feather-building genes
>Not "genes that could be reworked into forming feathers perhaps," GODDAMNED FEATHER GENES
Crocodilians and birds share certain beta-keratin genes. In the linked study, early beta-keratins were immunolabeled and tracked through various stages of development
While other studies show that bird feathers retain this immunolabeling in their feathers throughout development, this one shows that alligators do not.
This indicates that alligators START developing FUCKING FEATHERS, then the process goes "oh, shit, wait a minute," HALTS, then makes scales.

MY FUCKING FACE WHEN.

>>2053589
And like an idiot I forget to link the study.
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17784647

>>2043753
>"manly tears lands starring role in jurassic world.png"

>>2053589
>This indicates that alligators START developing FUCKING FEATHERS, then the process goes "oh, shit, wait a minute," HALTS, then makes scales.
no it doesn't
stop making shit up

>>2051817
>So the crux of your argument is that Dinosaur phylogeny is completely wrong...because...reasons...okay
no, specifically my argument is that both Coelurosauria and Tyrannosauroidea are wastebasket taxa for reasons you lack the education to grasp. If you'd like we may discuss those reasons, but I sincerely doubt anyone here has the knowledge of dinosaur anatomy to know if what I'm saying is true.

so you're left either accepting it or rejecting it on faith or perhaps by democratic vote.

which is fine. For the moment most dinosaur paleontologists probably suspect what I say is true, several of them have said it outright, but most aren't going to make a big deal of it for the moment because 1. the people that made the mistakes leading to this situation are beloved and respected, and 2. nobody really has anything better to offer at this time, we just know the current arrangement is wrong.

>>2053499
not for very long. Just like body heat leaks out over time, environmental heat leaks in. There is no perfect insulator.

>>2053499
You seem to be failing to grasp the problem though.

An animal as large and as active as T. rex is going to be HOTTER than its environment 99% of the time. The reason climate matters ISN'T because the air temperature is going to make the animal hotter,
it's because an animal has more difficulty losing heat when the air is hotter.

feathers just make that even more difficult. Any help they provide by blocking heat out is useless to T. rex, because almost all of the time he's trying to lose heat, not worrying about gaining it.

>>2053731
...did you even read the study?

>>2053749

Not that guy..but

>woolly mammoth

>>2053783
I read it before you posted it.
we've been over this several times on /an/.

barb cells aren't feathers.

and no dinosaur paleontologist will sign off on your interpretation because it would mean pennaceous feathers are ancestral and thus the "feathers" of Kulindadromeus, Dilonng, Yutyrannus and others AREN'T RELATED TO THE FEATHERS OF BIRDS.

This is a pretty big problem, it destroys the current theories about feather evolution from simple fibers to branched ones.

But anyways, I can try to translate the study for you if you like. Nowhere does it say that feathers develop, and the fact that alligators don't retain immunolabeling means feathers DON'T develop.

Essentially the opposite of how you seem to have interpreted it.

>>2053784
much smaller animal in much colder climates.

>>2050099
The most obvious problems with synonymizing Deinonychus and Velociraptor are that they lived almost 40 million years apart (on separate (though sometimes connected) continents) and that their skulls are significantly different from each other.

>>2054079
neither of which is an obstacle since we're talking about the genus rather than the species.

a genus can easily span millions of years and thousands of miles.

>>2054168
Yes, but dinosaur genera last a few million years at best. Genus vs species is arbitrary, so giving things different names to emphasize differences can be unavoidable. If I were an expert I could probably list all of the detailed differences between Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Trying to combine the two was just one of Paul's weird little pet hypotheses, like oviraptorosaurs being birds.

File: VELOCIRAPTOR_wiki.png (2MB, 1772x996px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1772x996px

>>2054171
>Yes, but dinosaur genera last a few million years at best.
not really.
rock units containing dinosaurs record a few million years each at best.
>If I were an expert I could probably list all of the detailed differences between Deinonychus and Velociraptor.
you don't have to be an expert.
every paper on an animal will list the differences between it and closely related animals.

for those two it probably comes down to 2 or 3 actual differences.

if you'd like we can hunt the papers down and see. I think I have the original 1800's velociraptor stuff on my computer.

File: 611px-Velociraptor_mongoliensis_type_skull_and_jaws.jpg (77KB, 611x600px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 611x600px

>>2054173
>1800's
my bad, looks like 1920's

>>2054171
there's also the problem that the Bayn Dzak has never been radiometrically dated.

File: NOTMUHDINOSORS.png (97KB, 1393x638px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1393x638px

>>2051319
It's just that we've had this argument everyday for years now, we mostly discuss specifics.
That's a sick toy.

>>2053749
I see what you mean. You're right.

So the only remaining chance to explain a (slightly) feathered T. rex would be sexual selection.

>>2043753
The raptors in JP films are utahraptors but velociraptor sounds better

>>2054674
there's a couple other possibilities, like if it was nocturnal or if it was just a scavenger with a fairly slow metabolism. Then feathers would be helpful.

I don't think either interpretation is currently accepted though.

I think it's cool. Imagining them with feathers on is kind of like rediscovering dinosaurs. This pleases me.

>you'll never see a dinosaur irl