Time for a new dinosaur thread.
Feathered and scaly dinosaurs equally welcome; no need to bicker.
I get where your coming from but...
still no feathers on Iguanadonts tons of skin impressions from various late cretaceous hadrosaurs say to the contrary. inb4 Kulindadromeus and integument is a world different from feathers
And just who is drawing triceratops with feathers? I've seen some deviantart drawings of straight up, full plumage but thats it - deviantart, where most of these pictures come from, and most of them are just from regular artists.
If you faggots are going to complain and debate each other, at least post pictures of dinos or other Mesozoic life while you're at it.
The thing that bothers me about the feathered dino drawings is that they are shown as "flightless birds", which is backwards to me. Surely animals that would evolve INTO birds wouldn't have vestigial wings, and any "feather" type plumage would look fit for purpose (insulation) rather than like bird feathers that are designed for flight.
just wanna point out that some kind of psittacosaur, an ancestor of triceratops was discovered with long quills along its tail, so some people think all ceratopsids might have had that kind of plummage.
Plus we can assume that pretty much all dromaeosaurs had feathers, as well as some (maybe all?) other theropods. Since theropods and ceratopsids are relatively distantly related it kinda makes sense for most dinosaurs to have some kind of plummage. Which ones exactly do and don't is anyone's guess tho
You'd be right if this were 1999, but at this point the sheer amount of discoveries and their phylogenetic placement is kinda leaning toward feathers (or at the very least, filamentous beta-keratin integument) being an ancestral trait for all archosaurs in the pterosaur/dinosaur node.
>Full remiges in stem-avialans
>varying degrees of contour feathers and down in the majority of theropods
>branched filoplumes and fuzz in basal ornithischians
>Probable dormant feather genes in modern crocodilians
Like, these structures could maybe have arisen independently, but the most parsimonious interpretation is that they're all homologous.
Given the mutability of extant archosaurian dermal genes, It's a safe bet that non-feathered dinosaurs were the "advanced" ones.
I read somewhere that they think Trikes may have been omnivorous as well, based on teeth shape.
So how did feathers look on a trex did have a little bit or was did they have a shit ton similar to a velociraptor
That sounds kinda interesting but I doubt the triceratops was a omnivore
>dynos don't come under it cause there is no proof they ever existed.
Anon come on if you're trying to b8 people at least don't put out stupid b8
So, everyone will just post images without write for a future discussion?
Many times an image does not worth nothing without a word.
I give you a theme
Amphicoelias it's for real?
How big could be?
>everyone will just post images without write for a future discussion?
/an/ prefers pictures to discussion most of the time.
That way they don't have to deal with my irritating, know-it-all ass.
Amphicoelias is probably Diplodocus, Foster really knows his shit when it comes to sauropods. Size is likely an error in publishing. Cope stuck a decimal in the wrong place.
doesn't hurt to keep looking though.
Did you read they're working on the first Morrison Formation raptor atm? Bakker had previously found a raptor tooth at Como Bluff about ten years ago, but apparently someone has come up with a fairly complete skeleton.
>Amphicoelus is probably Diplodocus
Amphicoelus altus is known from relatively good remains and is considered a primitive diplodocid heck its more related to basically any other diplodocid rather then the crown Diplodocus. Its the the other species Amphicoelias fragillimus is the big mysterious one but A. altus is a solid species
Foster pointed out that the holotype for A. altus is indistinguishable from Diplodocus.
He left the name in place but reserved it only for the holotype material and reassigned all other A. altus material to Diplodocus.
Amphicoelius is the senior name though, so if the two are the same then Diplodocus may be rejected. He didn't want to mess with that.
no this was more a admittedly interesting theory with no real evidence for it but considering sometimes herbivores will pick at carcasses and hippos sometimes just straight up kill and nibble on animals I could see a Triceratops using that massive powerful beak to pick at something dead for some calcium or protein
>Amphicoelias (/ˌæmfᵻˈsiːliəs/, meaning "biconcave", from the Greek αμφι, amphi: "on both sides", and kοιλος, koilos: "hollow, concave") is a genus of herbivorous sauropod dinosaur that is probably synonymous with the genus Diplodocus.
Hell, even deer will eat rabbits and birds for the calcium in their bones...
Yi qi, basically a real wyvern- if a tiny one.
New trendy bullshit. Ever since millennials got into biology they want make herbivory into a myth because a deer ate a fish once, so now they're trying to convince everyone they're the edgiest thing ever by claiming that every herbivore is actually an omnivore. The same thing with the featherfaggotry. It's trendhopping nonsense. Some Therapods were feathered. MOST Dinosaurs WERE NOT.
>B-b-but muh x structures
Go suck on China's fake fossil dick some more.
I want a pet baby Tyrannosaurus so bad
These threads never have enough John Sibbick.
When I was younger I wanted to be a paleontologist, and that was before I even saw Jurassic Park. Glad I didn't go for it though since I'd probably be broker and more unemployed than I am now.
Where my ankylobros at?
I want to genuinely believe that this thing could go toe-to-toe with 'Ol Rexy and have a decent chance
> As only the tail club of specimen AMNH 5214 is known, the range of variation between individuals is unknown, but tail club shapes are known to have been variable in related ankylosaurids. The tail club of AMNH 5214 is 450 mm (18 in) wide. The last seven tail vertebrae formed the "handle" of the tail club. >These vertebrae were in contact, with no cartilage between them, and sometimes coossified, which made them immobile. >Ossified tendons attached to the vertebrae in front of the tail club, and these features together helped strengthen it.
>A 2009 study estimated that ankylosaurids could swing their tails at 100 degrees laterally and the mainly cancellous clubs would have a lowered moment of inertia and been effective weapons. However, the study also found that while large ankylosaurid tail clubs were capable of breaking bones, medium and small clubs were not. Despite the feasibility of tail swinging, the researchers could not determine whether ankylosaurids used their clubs for defense against potential predators, in intraspecific combat or both. In 1993, Tony Thulborn proposed that the tail club of ankylosaurids primarily acted as a decoy for the head, as he thought the tail too short and inflexible to have an effective reach; the "dummy head" would lure a predator close to the tail, where it could be stricken. Carpenter has rejected this idea, as tail club shape is highly variable among ankylosaurids, even in the same genus.
Take that as you will. The first specimen could have been an older one. Aside from that, we have like two 'decent' specimens. None of them are complete so wow. I'm realizing more and more lately that we know jack shit about dinosaurs and just how little fossil records we have on most of them.
>I'm realizing more and more lately that we know jack shit about dinosaurs and just how little fossil records we have on most of them.
correct. we almost never have a complete skeleton unless it's some absurdly common type of dinosaur.
also if you dig into what we know a bit beyond just what the media tosses out you'll find the character of the knowledge is completely different from common perception.
a lot of things that are passed off as known fact in the public press are just speculation. Most of paleontology doesn't actually deal with T. rexes and feathers. Or even with dinosaurs as whole animals. Most of the time we're comparing 3 bones from one animal to an entirely different 5 and 1/2 bones from another species.
there is certainly some science involved, but the public in general isn't aware of that part at all. The public is interested in 1) what dinosaurs looked like, and 2) how dinosaurs behaved.
these are two points where fossils don't tell us much, so paleontologists in general aren't particularly interested in it.
tl;dr: we know a shitload about dinosaurs, but it's mostly stuff the public would find very boring.
>Theropods, including spinosaurids, could not pronate their hands (rotate the forearm so the palm faced the ground), but a resting position on the side of the hand was possible, as shown by fossil prints from an Early Jurassic theropod.
There are a couple other possibilities.
walking on the side of the hand would've placed the forearm almost parallel to the ground, but walking on the knuckles would've extended the arm more. Iguanodon has been interpreted as walking on its knuckles in the past, as have prosauropods.
the other interpretation has to do with why theropods couldn't pronate the wrist. Their forearms were really short so rotating it crossed the radius and ulna. Spinosaurus had some unusually long forearms, so perhaps it could pronate its wrists in a way other theropods couldn't. This contradicts your quote, but it's likely Wikipedia is mistaken on that point since iirc Carpenter didn't actually examine Spinosaurids in his work on theropod forelimb mechanics. His goal on that paper wasn't to prove that theropods can't pronate the wrist, he was specifically examining the arrangement of the carpus which has consistently been a problem in theropods and prosauropods. The bones of the wrist are usually jumbled and scattered if they're even present at all, which leads to a lot of confusion on how they were arranged in life.
Citation in picture.
I happen to have the study on hand that Wikipedia cites regarding pronation of the wrist. A search for "Spinosaurus" and "spinosaurid" in the text turns up 0 results.
the simple fact is Carpenter didn't examine spinosaurs when he wrote that theropods can't pronate the wrist. He based his statement on a handful of theropods none of which had arms as long as Spinosaurus.
in fact if you read the study that Wikipedia cites, not only does it NOT mention Spinosaurus, but it specifically mentions that Deinonychus can pronate its wrist.
>Deinonychus also shows one adaptation not seen in the other theropods, the capacity of pronating the manus.
Someone on Wikipedia appears to be citing a study that says the opposite of what they think it does.
Most non-avian dinosaurs actually had very primitive wrists, due to a general lack of corpal bones to allow for more wrist flexibility.
Just look at the arms of allosaurs or megalosaurs (spinosaur origins)
Now look at the more complex wrist of deinonychus.
The king of dinosaurs might have also snacked on sauropods.
Tyrannosaurs seem to have been best adapted to survived traumatic injuries. Heck, many of them even show signs of having multiple injuries from fights with each other or against armored prey, and yet still survived for years.
Maybe, but you have to find some way to kill a large and tall animal.
1. Sauropods were very slow due to their size and mass.
2. Tyrannosaurus pretty much had the most lethal bite of any terrestrial animal.
Each bite would cause significant damage.
3. Tyrannosaurs are very hardy robust durable animals that have powerful adaptations to also withstand and recover quicker from injuries.
It is also possible that most dinosaurs had strong healing abilities, but no other dinosaur show such grand scales of such than tyrannosaurs.
Props to +StygimolochSpinifer on Deviantart, called 'Dinosaurs and Non-Dinosaurs'
RED are not related to dinosaurs.
YELLOW are related to dinosaurs because they are archosaurs, but are not actually dinosaurs themselves.
GREEN are actual true dinosaurs.
It is a well known fact among paleontologists that tyrannosaurus jaws were specifically designed to cause the most damage and tear off the most (largest chunks of meat and even bones) in comparison to other dinosaurs.
They gave tyrannosaurus an evolutionary advantage of killing quicker and more ruthlessly, in addition to making the most consumption for every kill. This meant more nutrition intake.
Image by +HodariNundu, called 'So much for AnachronicDating.com'
Two of the most dangerous armored prey to have ever lived.
What spinosaurus might have looked like, had it survived and evolved longer.
The asteroids or comet was a lie. It was all a cover up by the Counsel to mask the real threat. The threat that is all too terrifying to the masses.
That was pretty much the gallery food market for tyrannosaurus. It is such a beautiful image with herds of triceratops and alamosaurus.
Here are a few other tyrannosaurus prey items to someday add in the future:
1. 39-43ft edmontosaurus. They were the easiest for a tyrannosaurus to kill, due to their lack of armor or weapons. Tyrannosaurus jaws would easily dispatch them with a single bite.
But edmontosaurus was surprisingly fast for their size.
2. Torosaurus: though some believe it was basically a more mature triceratops, this was merely speculative and more recent studies greatly refute it.
They were most likely two separate species living in overlapping territories; sort of similar to black and white rhinos of Africa today.
3. The iconic ankylosaurus. though this was the hardest to kill due to its very bony armor and club tail that could shatter bones.
4. Denversaurus. though related to ankylosaurus, it was more spiky and did not have a clubbed tail. Still, its tail was spiky enough to cause damage and its pronounced shoulder spikes could cause severe damage.
You're right. They were nothing more but a conspiracy by either government or Satan to fool people into seeing faux major flaws in the story of Adam and Eve. Such as animals existing long before 6,000yrs and why would God intentionally create massive carnivorous animals.
Those bones are actually just stones and plastered bones berried to fool the masses.
God such stupid fucking theories. I swear to god it's like paleontologists never study biology and just make stupid shit up. It had a fucking club on the end of its tail. What does EVERY SINGLE HERBIVORE with protective defense features do? They fight amongst themselves, mostly for breeding rights, AND they use their defensive measures to fend off predators.
>Now, now, Dinosaurs were magical, primitive animals who couldn't climb trees, turn their hands an had to live in swamps to support their weight. There's no way they could use obviously defensive measures defensively.
I swear, it's like paleontologist believe Dinosaurs were fucking magically primitive animals and Occam's Razor never applies to them.
I didn't confuse anything. There are reams of fraudulent Chinese fossils from Liaoning. It boggles my mind that just *coincidentally* a large percentage of these "new, edgy" dinosaurs fossils with feathers and bat wings and other stupid shit all seem to come from the most fraudulent fossil beds on Earth and paleontologists never question this. Archaeoraptor was BY FAR NOT the only fraudulent fossil out of China. Stop learning everything you know about fossils from pop science.
uhh I hope you don't mind but I think everybody is about to get a little wet
Yeahh, so about that beachhouse over there, probably gone.
Everyone is pretty much well informed by now that tyrannosaurus was a near indestructible animal by animal standards. it could very easily kill just about any predatory dinosaur that dared to oppose it, using its robust and resilient body, precise vision and overkill jaws.
But dakotaraptor may have been the dominant small pry hunter in tyrannosaurus environment.
Unlikely, because it was not the only carnivorous creature preying on such prey.
It is possible that juvenile tyrannosaurus or nanotyrannus might have hunted the same and even larger prey than dakotaraptor.
In fact, nanotyrannus may be its own species that lived in groups up to 15 members, as some evidence concludes to.
All while dakotaraptor was likely a more stealthy solitary hunter.
Ekrixinatosaur on the left, and giganotosaurus on the right.
So who would be the real king of South America if they really were roughly the same size and lived together?
Ekrixinatosaurus was at most 36ft in length, while giganotosaurus was 40 to 43ft. This gives giganotosaurus a size advantage of being 4-7ft larger, but likely weighed about the same. This is because giganotosaurus was a very slender lightly built animal.
Neither was smart or had powerful bites. Both actually had relatively weak jaws, but giganotosaurus had more teeth in which were larger but more fragile.
Ekrixinatosaurus on the other hand evidently had a thick somewhat armored hide as carnotaurus. Such a hide could prove to be very tough for giganotosaurus sharp but weaker teeth.
Both actually had very small arms that were of no real use for combat; albeit abelisaur arms being a lot smaller in comparison.
It could go either way, but I would bet on giganotosaurus because it may have lived in gangs while ekrixinatosaurus was likely solitary.
>literally a bird
So, what? You want it to look like a JP raptor?
meybe something like this? Ya know, since proto-feathers and Plumage are NOT actually the same thing
I see what you mean. The feathers on the body should resemble more like hair than more branched feathers.
except raptors are inferred as having feathers because they have quill knobs on the arms, which implies pennaceous or pinnate feathers.
not necessarily flight feathers, but long feathers like a bird's wing feathers, having a central shaft anchored in bone. Literally something that looks like a bird.
zhuchengtyrannus on the left, and tarbosaurus on the right.
Which would be the real king of East Asia?
it seems likely that at some point in the future both of those genera will be rolled into Tyrannosaurus. Perhaps even T. rex.
Oh no I want to play Spore again.
Both have specimens that range from 30-40ft. But zhuchengtyrannus specimens are generally larger than those of tarbosaurus; for now at least.
>They can tell about nerves from fossils?
well we can tell about cranial nerves since those go through holes in the bone of the skull.
what you're saying is false, but first you have to realize that birds are dinosaurs and we have lots of fossil bird feathers.
second, it doesn't actually matter if any of the hundreds of loose feather fossils we have can be attributed to bird or other dinosaur, since the presence of quill knobs indicates a quill.
that's a very modern feather type. The exact same as birds have.
>a "single sheet" feather instead of modern veined feather
I think if you look into this a bit you'll find there's no such thing.
that "single sheet" was branched and had a big central quill running down the middle of it.
it wasn't a flight feather is all. It wasn't shaped to fly. It didn't have one side wider than the other with a gentle curve to it. In that regard it was a flat sheet compared to a modern flight feather.
but it was certainly branched. I don't know what you mean by "veined." I think maybe the source you're reading was talking about "vanes" and you misread it as "veins."
you'd also have to wonder why they'd need a trunk when their neck is already a billion feet long.
Also that. Yeah, all the evidence adds up in favor of Sauropods not having trunks. Although the foramen thing doesn't exactly hold water, because I'm pretty sure the skulls of Ceratopsians and Hadrosaurs are like that also and the same argument has been used to infer they couldn't have cheeks, but the laws of physics absolutely demand they had to have cheeks because their food would have fallen out of their heads while they chewed if they didn't.
well the cheeks wouldn't necessarily have to be muscular just to hold food in. The tongue could work to retrieve food that falls outside of the tooth battery next to the cheek. So a facial nerve may not be necessary.
Some dinosaurs had foramina for facial nerves. I'm not sure which ones without looking it up though. iirc hadrosaurs did.
yeah, just glancing through stuff I have sitting around it looks like Ceratopsians do have the foramen for the facial nerve. So muscular cheeks would be possible for those guys.
Pic is endocast of Pachyrhinosaurus, the facial nerve is VII.
I should amend that...
they have the foramen in the braincase for the facial nerve. They'd also need foramina in the maxillae and probably the ethmoids as well to get the nerve through the bone of the face. I'm not sure if they have those, ornithischians aren't really my area of expertise.
There was a case were a few Jurassic dinosaurs were found dead in a tar pit, such as allosaurus, stegosaurus and a sauropod.
In theory, the herbivores were attracted to the water and the predators were attracted to the trapped prey.
True, generally you want cheek control to prevent biting your own cheeks though (not that it ever helped me kek).
Do they? Maybe it was just Hadrosaurs they said that about, but I was pretty sure a suite of groups were included, maybe Stegosaurids too. It's been a while since I saw it.
At ten very least, dakotaraptor would be a real threat when they were much younger. But this assuming if they strayed too far from their parents (or pack for nanotyrannus).
This image was depicting a very young tyrannosaur chasing a target, when a dakotaraptor stole the target on the lest moment.
Can someone animate this with jp3 spino roars spasticly edited to match the meows of the original
Sorry. Here it is
Here is a size comparison between tyrannosaurus compared to its prey (torosauru and denversaurus excluded)
Origional source: http://christopher252.deviantart.com/art/Lamina-comparativa-T-Rex-410368642
Here is tyrannosaurus compared to other predatory dinosaurs http://ultamateterex2.deviantart.com/art/Character-Line-up-440901101?q=favby%3ACalibersoul2012%2F66232753&qo=127
>Maybe it was just Hadrosaurs they said that about, but I was pretty sure a suite of groups were included,
it's possible for people to be mistaken, and it's possible I may be mistaken. Usually paleontologists are experts on a very narrow subject and don't know much outside their area of expertise. I made a short but fairly interesting career in the discipline mostly by pointing out other people's mistakes.
>maybe Stegosaurids too.
that's another one I'd have to look up. iirc they don't have a facial nerve, but then I can't remember any published stegosaur braincases off the top of my head. They had an extraordinarily simple brain though.
Ok, found a Stegosaurus endocast, it's the bottom row in this pic.
you can see that it has a facial nerve, cranial nerve VII. However the nerve branches inside the braincase, with one branch appearing to follow the hypoglossal nerve out the back of the skull and presumably to the bottom jaw. The other branch appears to follow the auditory meatus straight out the side of the skull or perhaps to the base of the jaw.
So that appears to be an interesting case of a dinosaur that has a facial nerve but uses it for something other than facial muscles. It appears to be recruited into the jaw musculature.
This situation appears to be similar to the endocast in the top row, from the ankylosaur Kunbarrasaurus. But in Kunbarrasaurus the facial nerve appears to be even simpler, just an unbranched nerve following the auditory meatus directly. No branch exiting towards the hypoglossal canal.
so it's possible that these dinosaurs were using the facial nerve for something other than the face. Jaw or tongue would seem most likely.
though I guess that doesn't necessarily rule out cheeks since they could've had a buccinator muscle innervated from below.
it would just be a somewhat different route than the facial nerve takes in other animals.
Yeah tyrannosaurus was a real badass with a very impressive selection of prey. It could take a beating and kill very easily with a single gruesome bite.
But what is the point when it had very poor vision.? I am sure it was proven, which is why it was in JP in the first place, right?
Oh the irony
Though most dinosaurs had poor eyesight, tyrannosaur vision is actually very advance with tyrannosaurus surpassing them all. In fact t-rex might have had the best precise eyesight out of all known organisms, even outside dinosaurs. Their eyes even put eagles to shame.
Tyrannosaurus was an animal that definitely had a high value for its vision and attacked with precision,
JP' simply made it up as they did with their dilophosaurus frill or carnotaurus invisibility. This was not so much them simply making things up for the sake of it, but to express that we really only know so little of them based on their bones and speculations.
Though I suspect they blinded the t-rex so that they could have very intense lose encounters without it immediately stacking on them. However, it could be explained as a dysfunction due to using toads DNA as a genetic buffer.
Damn, that s ironic.
Telling people to use tyrannosaurus "weakness" of sight by standing still to prevent being eaten is like telling people to run through an open flat land if spotted by cheetahs to "exploit their slowness"...
Evolutionary wise, tyrannosaurus is really an overachiever among most average dinosaurs
the reason they played down its vision is because it has some of the largest olfactory lobes ever found.
so they went with the idea that it depended more on its sense of smell than its vision. The findings that it had excellent binocular vision is a pretty new finding. Newer than JP anyways.
Interestingly people often make the same mistake about dogs -
dogs have a superior sense of smell so people assume they must not see very well. Which is mostly bunk, they see at least as well as we do. Just not as many colors.
I notice everyone is ignoring you, I just want to say I always find your posts infinitely amusing. You tickle the hell out of my funny bone.
>paleontologists never question this
see, this is why it's funny to me. You have no idea what paleontologists do or know and just kinda assume you're better at their job than they are. I imagine you walking through life obliviously criticizing brain surgeons and automotive engineers just as vehemently.
>god damn it Bob why don't you just wire the smell part of the brain to the math part so the patient can calculate the exact number of odors he's detecting? fucking brain surgeons, man. So stupid.
anyways, I just wanted to say thanks. You make the thread for me.
but anyways, to address your points both stated and implied:
"Archaeoraptor" was rejected for publication by every single paleontological journal because it appeared to be a fake. Paleontologists looked at it and said "nope."
It was ultimately published in National Geographic, not a scientific journal, because no real journal wanted any part of it.
However the reason it fooled one paleontologist was because the fake was made from two real dinosaurs. So the bones at least looked like actual dinosaur bones. Paleontologists can tell the difference.
To make a fake that fools a paleontologist you'd about need to make it out of real, unknown dinosaur bones. Because if you make it out of modern animal bones we're not going to have any problem telling what it's made out of. Then there's the problem of mineralization. Fossil bones are made of rock that preserves the shape and structure of the original bones. So you can't just sculpt rock or clay into the shape of unknown bones, it won't look like bone under a microscope. Then there's the problem of what to make your fake bones look like. Believe it or not you'd have to spend a decade studying bones just to know what to make your fake ones look like. It'd have to be something new but still obviously dinosaur bones. The average Chinese peasant doesn't have this knowledge.
your quote you've posted in the past regarding 80% of the fossils in Chinese museums being fake is undoubtedly true, but the same thing is true of American and European museums. The vast majority of display fossils are casts of real fossils or sculptures or more often both. We almost never find whole dinosaurs and even when we do most museums won't display them or can't afford to buy them.
It's also true that most Chinese fossils for sale on ebay and around the world are fakes. But they aren't fakes designed to fool paleontologists. That doesn't work. I can spot the fakes easily, and there's lots of them.
Thanks for the information. I was seriously under the impression that tyrannosaurus hunted with poor vision and average smell, but mostly hunted based on sound. The tyrannosaurus in JP seem to have been mostly distracted based on screams or loud noises.
Now I question if tyrannosaurus in reality was so evolved for sight and smell that it was near deaf.
Despite an "overkill" with its sight and smelling, its hearing was also very acute and could even hear low frequency sound.
Based on its senses, it was likely a very highly active hunter scouring for food day and/or night.
I think that theory had more bases in its strangely sharp hook-shaped beak.
Such a beak shape is typical for squids, carnivorous turtles, eagles and vultures.
Though there might be other reason(s) to explain this.
Never noticed that only the tip is beak and the rest of the mouth is soft naked lips.
What a disgusting creature I'm glad it's going extinct, also a warning to everyone who thinks featherless theropos would look more intimidating.
Diplodocus becoming a synonym ohhh jez...
that's pretty much what Foster said.
>screw that, I'm not touching that problem and you can't make me.
after Brontosaurus went down nobody wants to be the guy that killed off Diplodocus.
I remember those from grade school in the 90's. Forgot when it was changed but I was like great, that's one more thing changed that I have to relearn. Pluto being demoted was another.
Technically, "Brontosaurus" excelsus was always a real species, just one that was classified as "Apatosaurus" excelsus.
Thanks to a pretty fucking exhaustive study, it turns out that the "Brontosaurus" holotype has enough key diagnostic features that set it apart from Apatosaurus to warrant a separate genus.
Ergo, Brontosaurus excelsus does into real.
Also, their necks were fucking warclubs.
Well, it's been holding firm for about a year now, so I wouldn't recommend holding your breath.
As for that "authority" thing, I think I'll take my taxonomics from peer-reviewed journals over random internet contrarians, thanks.
yeah, I understand your reluctance.
notice that your peer reviewed study cites another study that failed to support Brontosaurus as a genus,
and in fact there are ten or fifteen such studies around prior to this one that also fail to support Brontosaurus.
So you have to pretend they found something new about the bones of brontosaurus
they changed the weighting of the characters to support the genus.
I'll let you take a guess which happened. I can tell you we've had these same bones for well over a hundred years now, and they've been examined in full and glorious detail by hundreds of paleontologists who all found them to be Apatasaurus.
If you read the study you so blindly cite you'll get your answer.
>Tschopp et al. spend years analyzing, comparing, coding, and measuring anatomical data and end up with the largest and most extensive sauropod phylogenetic analysis ever
>Nah it's wrong because a handful of two-to-three-specimen analyses said "meh."
It literally comes down to them weighting traits others consider to be individual variation.
as I said at the beginning.
everyone prior to this that has looked at Brontosaurus has interpreted the differences as individual variation. These guys didn't.
I never said it's wrong. I said it will be reversed.
cladograms are regularly reversed, that's their nature.
>everyone prior to this that has looked at Brontosaurus has interpreted the differences as individual variation
While that's true, none of those studies came even close to Tschopp et al. in terms of sample size or depth of analysis.
What might seem to be "individual variation" when you compare two or three specimens turns out to be diagnostic traits when they're shared consistently between dozens of geologically and chronologically disparate specimens.
I'm not "blindly citing" or "swallowing cladograms whole," chum. I'm acknowledging the information presented in this study and recognizing the scale.
In theory your cladogram should come out exactly the same no matter the sample size, so your argument doesn't hold water.
I do agree that the scale of the project affected the results, but that doesn't mean it's more accurate. It just means they included ever meaningful outgroup so there's no baseline to compare to.
anyways, your language of right or wrong shows a naïve understanding of how this stuff works. Also your belief that it's stood for a year. I can guarantee you other people have run the numbers and come up with different results since then, they just didn't publish them.
in fact the authors of your study probably got ten or twenty different results and stuck with something close to the most parsimonius one.
I thought the real reason behind its vision issue (from the books) was the frog DNA, as most frogs hunt by shape and movement, and that it got lost in translation into the movie.
Also JP Dinos/Petros/Mosasaurs are pretty much mutants, so here's hoping for slightly more accurate dinos in future films, at least as a sideshow.
nah, it's not in the books afaik.
the only part I've found so far about rex vision is when they're watching her eat. Malcolm and the others are in the truck up above. The animal stops and stares at them. He asks if she can see them, and the dude on the intercom says, "Oh yes."
>Doesn't even into statistics
>Thinks him knows how to science good
>Thinks diction is indicative of a stance's veracity
Come back when you've lost that personal investment in the taxonomy of dead lizards.