DINOSAURS

File: 1432435149056.jpg (101KB, 1600x582px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1600x582px

>>1992680
skimmed it, but it doesn't seem to actually prove the quad spino wrong or right.

>>1992809
the last two sentences of the abstract and the paper in its entirely debunk the quad spino by reassigning most of the material used in the quad reconstruction to species other than S. aegyptiacus.

The quad reconstruction depended on the assumption that ALL OF THE BONES USED WERE NOT ONLY FROM THE SAME SPECIES, BUT FROM THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.

this paper shows that the bones were from four different species and two different genera, there's no possible way they were from one single individual.

File: spinosaur_dinosaurs_by_maspix-d3jbdj5.jpg (86KB, 900x563px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 900x563px

What a time to be alive. Stand up Spino!

>>1992830
I thought they admitted that they were basing their reconstruction on different skeletons in the original paper? I don't think spinosaurus was a quadruped either, but you shouldn't misrepresent the claim, either.

>>1992850
>I thought they admitted that they were basing their reconstruction on different skeletons in the original paper?
the drawing was based on different skeletons but supposedly all one species.

but the legs and hips were attributed to a single species which was originally called Sigilmassasaurus but which Ibrahim synonymized with Spinosaurus.

in fact Ibrahim's short-legged skeleton contained bones assignable to two other species of Spinosaurus in addition to the Sigilmassasaurus elements.

he got around this by synonymizing all three spinosaurs and Sigilmassasaurus into Spinosaurus. He called them all S. aegyptiacus and said they were all from one animal.

This new paper reaffirms that the four species they had to synonymize to get that skeleton are in fact actual species and genera, so the skeleton is meaningless from a scientific standpoint. It's not a single Spinosaurus with short legs, it's at least four different animals.

File: 1367416386821.jpg (177KB, 1220x630px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1220x630px

>>1992850
the other problem with the short-legged spino that this paper hints at is that Ibrahim made it sound like he personally dug the skeleton up and saw it articulated in the ground.

in reality he bought it from bone sellers that told him it all came from one animal. They apparently lied and he passed the lies on as fact because he undoubtedly believed them.

>>1992863
So does that mean I can I draw my Spinosaurs with long bipedal legs now?

File: 1362046101053.jpg (227KB, 989x1156px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 989x1156px

>>1992878
you have my permission!

Ibrahim et al will probably publish something defending their stubby Spinosaurus pretty soon anyways. It'll go back and forth for a while.

File: allosa2.jpg (68KB, 720x406px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 720x406px

Big Al ;_;

>>1992680
Anyone hyped about "Lightning claw" and finally finding out what the fuck megaraptorids are?

Question

Witch large theropod has the worst fanboys:

Tyrannofags, Spinofags or Charcharo/Gigafags?

>>1993282

Raptorfags because the raptors in Jurassic Park are basically made up and never existed but this is what everyone thinks they looked like now.

File: 1428103291089.png (176KB, 375x524px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 375x524px

>>1993230
>tfw die a virgin and everyone in the future will now
Truly the worst fate

File: Blood_Horn_Carnotaurus.jpg (289KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1920x1080px

>>1993328
agreed

>Carnotaurus and Allosaurus are the best anyways

>>1993282
Charcharo/Gigafags

Nobody cares that their special snowflake theropod was larger than T. rex.

>>1993282
tyrannofags are the most defensive, spinofags seem to be the least educated, and giga/charcharofags are just fence sitting contrarians.

Who cares, you'll never see one anyways so just imagine it's the one you like best. I don't know shit....

>>1993398
>you'll never see one anyways

Fuck you I want my chickensaurus

[spoiler]genetically engineered catgirls are just a bonus[/spoiler]

>>1993350
Is that model from Primal Carnage? Pretty neat desu.

>>1993835
Lol, it even has that fully aquatic one some guy drew

>>1992680
Wah, wah I don't like the new spino, just accept it and shut up

File: Spino.jpg (123KB, 1171x683px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1171x683px

So this isn't real?

>>1993957
It like most things with dinosaurs is debatable.
OP is just being a faggot because muh spino

File: Dinos_and_waterspout_by_dustdevil.jpg (217KB, 1200x698px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1200x698px

>>1993969
I don't actually care about Spinosaurus either way.

I'm just giving /an/ the heads-up that the stubby spino has been discredited and will probably disappear without anyone saying much about it.

Also Dinosaur General.

>>1993282
Raptors

>>1993957
Cool art

File: saddest panda.gif (948KB, 288x162px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 288x162px

>>1993230

Please not tonight...

Can we all agree that a Spinosaurus could not beat a T-Rex in a fight?

>>1993350
Is that some kind of bulldog dinosaur?

>>1994379
>muh powerlevels

>>1994381
it just couldn't desu

>>1994382
Of course it couldn't. Spinosaurus lived on an entirely different continent a couple million years before T.rex even existed.

>>1994393
I'm sorry lad, but even if someone cloned them and made them come to life today, T-Rex would win.

>>1994394
It's silly to argue about fights between animals that never have and never will fight each other.

>>1994394
This bullshit here is why i hate most other dinosaur lovers.

You cant say that for certain. There are innumerable tiny little variables that can tip a fight favor in one direction or another. A perfectly healthy T.rex could win a fight with one Spino then lose to another after it fully healed from the first battle for billions of reasons barring the fact there two compleatly diffrent animals from completly diffrent time periods and enviroments. I also wouldn't be that suprised if in a hypotherical enconter they just ignore each other because they have no fucking idea what that other thing is and its generally in an animals favor not to fuck about with something big that they dont recognise

File: 887458_10153560847559473_4604879807166327821_o.jpg (95KB, 1008x772px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1008x772px

Anybody want some parenting feels?

File: tyrannosaurus_rex_babysitting_by_damir_g_martin-d95kic0.jpg (96KB, 1600x663px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1600x663px

>>1994453

File: gorgosaurus_mother_by_daitengu-d54usq2.jpg (187KB, 900x1165px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 900x1165px

>>1994456

File: e10563f5caddaf068a1e3f8cf5c58852-d538zrc.jpg (194KB, 1000x707px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1000x707px

>>1994458

File: e750222b39b41aad33ab71d4d563b157-d8n4mia.jpg (3MB, 7000x5500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 7000x5500px

>>1994459

>>1992680
>short-legged Spinosaurus
manletosaurus

>>1994616
Even short legged it was the biggest carnivorous dinosaur.

>>1994456

This picture makes me feel all fuzzy inside.

File: Would you a raptor.png (598KB, 968x779px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 968x779px

would you a raptor, /an/?

File: skulls-chicken-dinosaur.jpg (326KB, 1400x798px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1400x798px

>>1996018
Fuck off back to /v/.

>>1992680
>>https://peerj.com/articles/1323/
I dont understand, can someone explain me please?:)

>>1996050
a year or so ago some scientists said they found a new, more complete skeleton of Spinosaurus that proved it had extremely short legs.

The problem was that the skeleton contained bones assignable to three different species of Spinosaurus as well as an entirely different genus of dinosaur. So the scientists said that all three species and the other genus were actually the same species.

This new article shows that the three species and one genus AREN'T all the same species of Spinosaurus. so the skeleton used to prove that Spinosaurus had short legs isn't actually one single skeleton at all. It's a mashup of several different animals.

this means the legs don't go with the rest of the bones, they might not even both be from the same animal.

Kinda like if I stuck frog legs on a donkey skeleton and said donkeys have really tiny legs...
it's not true. It's just a mistake.

File: fossil finds.jpg (191KB, 848x1092px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 848x1092px

>>1996050
>Ibrahim: HEY LOOK GUYS, I FOUND A PILE OF BONES FROM DONKEYS, HORSES, ZEBRAS AND FROGS!
>Ibrahim: I'M PRETTY SURE HORSES, ZEBRAS AND FROGS ARE ALL JUST DONKEYS!
>Ibrahim: AND DONKEYS HAVE REALLY SHORT LEGS! LIKE FROG LEGS!!!

>Media: HOLY SHIT, DONKEYS HAVE TINY LEGS!!!

>Evers and Ollie: Um, I'm pretty sure that's a frog's legs stuck on a donkey's spine with a zebra and a horse ribs and hips thrown in for fun.
>Evers and Ollie: NOT A DONKEY.

>Media: ........................................

>>1993361
>larger than T. rex.
were they though? pretty sure they were all around the same size and T-Rex was far more robust anyway

>>1998060
Carcharodontosaururus is believed to be anything from 12 to 14m long. So its not partcularly unresonable to belive it was bigger. and most of them are hipster contrarian faggots who would latch on to any theropod that was claimed to be bigger than t rex

File: 1443607786995.jpg (8KB, 232x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 232x250px

>go back in time
>all dinosaurs just look like oversized pigeons
>yfw

>>1999313
Of all the names, why call it that? There's already an animal called Charcharodon, and it doesn't have anything to do with dinosaurs. This triggers me.

>>1999377
Apparently Ernst Stromer was fucking mortal when he found it and thaught the teeth looked like shark teeth, thus he named it the shark tooth lizard

>>1992834
Spinosaurus confirmed to be the Drake of the dinosaur world

>>1999457
My German is weak, but my understanding is that Carcharodontosaurus was originally described from a handful of loose teeth, not an uncommon occurrence with theropods. The original authors noted a similarity to great white teeth, primarily in denticle count, denticle shape, carina length, and lateral crenelations of the enamel of the carinae.

The crenelations of the enamel of the carinae may be a size-related trait rather than a diagnostic trait of allosauroids... or sharks for that matter. Similar to the longitudinal enamel crenelations seen in some large Spinosaurus teeth but absent in others. This is in contrast to the longitudinal crenelations seen in the PM teeth of Ceratosaurus, which are found in all ontogenetic stages and indeed in unerupted teeth present in the skull.

Anyways it seems unlikely that Stromer actually thought they were very similar to shark teeth in gross morphology any more than Mantell and Cuvier thought Iguanodon teeth were much like iguana teeth in overall appearance. In both cases the authors were merely making observations about the paleobiology of the animals based on morphological comparisons to extant animals. When all you have are teeth to go on, teeth are what you concentrate on.

>>1992680
>salty spinofag not accepting badass nightmare crocodile design
>being a spinofag myself loving the quadruped design better
Top kek

>>1996018
I would [spoiler]keep[/spoiler] a velociraptor as a [spoiler]pet[/spoiler]

>>1993328
Being a raptorfag myself, I like both
The fictional and the real raptors
I'd love to keep those feathered cuties as pets, I'd keep two or three if they were not extinct
They'd be fun to cuddle with too, plus I can lock my door at night with no risk of them killing me
Being a raptorfag is great c:

>>2000297
I don't care either way.
just giving you the heads-up.

Spinosaurus bores me in either form.

File: eod.jpg (53KB, 381x499px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 381x499px

I've been looking for an up-to-date, comprehensive encyclopedia of dinosaurs. I've been looking at pic related on Amazon, but thought I'd come to you guys for another opinion.

File: eod2.jpg (67KB, 387x499px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 387x499px

>>2001186

This one is the best seller on Amazon for dinosaur biolody. Its more recent, but is a much smaller book (both in number of pages and also dimensions.) I'm unsure which one to get.

File: suchomimus_and_hatchlings_by_stygimolochspinifer-d7jdz09.png (221KB, 900x585px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 900x585px

>>1994453

>>2001186
on average 2 new species of dinosaur are named per month.

there is no comprehensive and up-to-date encyclopedia, it would be out of date before it got done printing.

try Wikipedia, they're both comprehensive and up to date.

File: Dededehiggy.jpg (139KB, 799x637px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 799x637px

>People actually believe Jurassic Park can depict accurate dinosaurs
>Featherfags being triggered by this movie

File: LambeosaurusDB.jpg (68KB, 630x400px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 630x400px

Hey guys, what is this flap of skin that I see in many dinosaur pictures?

>>2002116
pen0r

>>2002134
you mean, hemepen0r? (did they had those?)

File: olorotitan-large.jpg (40KB, 550x245px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 550x245px

>>2002116
That's where their pelvic bone juts out.

>>2002168
Is that sexy? I can't tell.

>>2002147
most species of dinos did not have hemipenes, they actually had a single penis, and mounted from behind. Like I did with your mom last night. Boom roasted.

>>2002182
Duck penis isn't homologous to croc penis and both are derived traits, so we don't actually know if dinosaurs had penes or what they looked like if they did.

so why were there no quadrupedal carnivorous dinosaurs?

>>2002213
when you don't use an organ it goes away, and it's very difficult to get evolution to work in reverse.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility

Carnivorous dinosaurs walked on their back feet long enough to lose most of the fingers and wrist bones they'd need to be quadrupeds.

once those bones were lost there was no mechanism to re-evolve them.

File: 694884f97737e40076c67b10106c046b.jpg (59KB, 736x331px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 736x331px

>>2002213

this:
>>2002215

also, archosaurs were (and continue to be) very successful, and probably continued to fill whatever niche was available for heavily-built, muscular, armored carnivores that supported their comparatively greater bulk with 4 legs.

>>2002215
Early dinosaurs were bipeds.
Including the ancestors of sauropods.

>>2002218
>Including the ancestors of sauropods.
unlikely since prosauropods such as Plateosaurus lacked ossified carpals which sauropods have. (Dollo's law again)

It's likely that we haven't yet discovered the ancestors of sauropods, though you probably won't find that bit of trivia on Wikipedia yet.

>>2002220
didn't all dinosaurs evolve from a single, bipedal ancestor?

>>2002229
either that or Saurischia is polyphyletic.

but if sauropods evolved from a biped they didn't stay bipedal long enough to reduce the carpus, so prosauropods aren't their ancestors. Maybe a derived sister taxon. One that lost its wrist bones from being bipedal too long.

>>2002229
the problem is that they apparently evolved in South America during the Late Carnian-Early Norian of the Triassic, and fossil-bearing terrestrial rocks from this time are scarce.

There's also a stratigraphic problem- Triassic sediments are dated based on land fossils while Jurassic ones are based on the sea. Because of this there's a great deal of confusion about the dates of rock units near the boundary and lately a lot of the dinosaurs we thought were late Triassic in age have been reassigned to the early Jurassic.

The upshot of all this is we know very very little about the earliest evolution of the dinosaurs, and we may never know the answers to this and similar questions simply because the rocks we need are missing.

File: 144235345342345.jpg (353KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 960x960px

Where were you when feathered crocodiles were discovered?

>>2003779
well i was at my grandma's house well she's not really my grandma i only knowed her for like 3 years shes not blood related. my grandpa died recently and i went to comfort his wife with my brother but my brother was too busy and it was just me, and she came onto me then it went really really bad :(

>>1992680
didn't they follow up on this discovery like a week later going "yeah, we misjudged the size of the rear legs. Still small for a therapod, but no so small to be a quadruped"

>>2004114
not really, no.
Scott Hartman said they misjudged and the authors defended their measurements. I think Scott later apologized and agreed with the authors' explanation.

>>2003779
Don't make fun of Mr. Gator's fur coat. It's cold.

>>2004126
are you saying a man named hartman said the dinosaur needed bigger hips

>>2004150
not really.
are you?

>>2004203
Pretty sure anon was joking. Butch Hartman is known for making big-hipped women in his cartoons.

>>1993806
I forgot about that game.

>>1999377
dinosaurs are just big fish anyway, so it makes perfect sense, you american drooler.

File: wild_turkey.jpg (181KB, 800x561px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 800x561px

Anyone eating dinosaur this Thanksgiving?

>>2004377

and big fish are just highly developed trees so i'm really not sure where the problem is

>>2005420
Trees are algae you dummy.

>>2005424

did you know that your body is composed of over 70% water, which is also takes up a major part of the weight of algae? vis a vis, water weight = algae weight, ergo algae is a human's closest relative.

smarter every day