Dinosaur thread?

Dinosaurs are not real.

>>2348729
go away

File: image_1630_1e-Acheroraptor.jpg (296KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1280x960px

>>2348720

Why the hell not. Post paleoart.

File: 1483774318759.jpg (151KB, 540x608px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 540x608px

>>2348760

File: dakotaraptor-s-ornithomimus-dinner.jpg (870KB, 800x1001px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 800x1001px

>>2348761

File: 17098469_1233159673442289_418739724958585866_n.jpg (73KB, 787x960px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 787x960px

>>2348729

Hello /pol/, you omnipresent retards.

File: Csotonyi_book1.png (318KB, 600x442px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 600x442px

>>2348763

File: deinonychus-antirrhopus.jpg (447KB, 2517x1788px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 2517x1788px

>>2348767

>>2348760
Who says feathered saurians aren't intimidating.

Serious question - I've been out of the loop for a bit. Is there a consensus on just how feathery dinosaurs were? The last debate I heard had some folks saying a fully feathered dino wouldn't be possible - that it'd overheat. So just ornamental? A fine, loose down? Or, fuck it, they were fully feathered?

Along that line, was it universal? Therapods were clearly the precursors to birds, but what about saurpods? Hardosaurs? I was under the impression "dinosaur" was a kind of lump-sum term like "reptiles."

File: Saurophaganax.jpg (87KB, 1234x647px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1234x647px

>>2348824
Everyone post favorite dinosaurs

>>2348824
There's not much consensus at all. Its fairly excepted that all theropods closer related to birds than allosaurus had feathers and the evidence of feathers on kulindadromeus and psitacosaurus indicate that it is much more widespread than just some theropods. (Exactly how widespread depends on the reception of the new revisions in the dino family tree.) Skin prints have been found of numerous dinosaurs, including theropods, and so far, all of them show scale. However, this does not rule out things like manes, crests, and plumage.

>>2348824
Summary:
Maniraptoriformes were feathered like birds, with fully evolved feathers
Basal Tyrannosauroids who lived in cold climates like Yutyrannus were covered in downy feathers
Tyrannosaurids who lived in hot climates like Tyrannosaurus were scaly, however baby Tyrannosaurids possibly had some downy feathers similar to how Elephantids in hot climates are born with some downy hair
Some basal Neornithischians like Kulindadromeus were covered in simple downy feathers
Some basal Ceratopsians like Psittacosaurus had quill like structures on its back
All other dinosaurs were completely scaly

>>2348835
The last half of that was complete conjecture,

>>2348845
he pretty much got it all right.

the only part I'd add is if Nanotyrannus is a babby Tyrannosaurus as most paleontologists believe then we have evidence that it also lacked feathers when young.

we do have skin samples from all major dinosaur clades, it's not that hard to know which had scales and which had feathers.

>>2348853
>Tyrannosaurids who lived in hot climates like Tyrannosaurus were scaly, however baby Tyrannosaurids possibly had some downy feathers similar to how Elephantids in hot climates are born with some downy hair
>All other dinosaurs were completely scaly

Both of these statements are just straight up guesses under the assumption that dinosaurs are scaly until proven feathered.

>>2348853
Because finding skin samples from a small piece of single member of a clade is indicative of the entire clade right?

>>2348720
Dinosaurs never existed.

>>2348856
>Both of these statements are just straight up guesses
except for all the skin samples from tyrannosaurids we have.
>>2348857
>Because finding skin samples from a small piece of single member of a clade is indicative of the entire clade right?
yes.
that's how we know most feathered dinosaurs were feathered. We don't actually have feathers from Utahraptor or Deinonychus or Tyrannosaurus, do we?

>>2348874
You mean the one skin sample from Rexy's ass? or the multiple ancestral tyrannosaurs proven to have feathers? Or the Yutyrannus fully covered in feathers?

And no, its not indicative of an entire clade. """"experts""" need to stop taking general ideas and outlines and making definitive statements with them. The real answer is we don't know.

>>2348876
>the one skin sample from Rexy's ass?
more than 12 from several areas.

>The real answer is we don't know.
which drops the number of feathered dinosaurs from over 100 to about 10. That knife cuts both ways.

>>2348877
You're working on a assumption that unless they're proven feathered, that means there scaled. Fucking carnosaurs had integument. Its much more prevalent than you want to believe.
>More than 12 from several areas.
All from the back of the legs, hips, and underside of the tail.

In your assurance that most tyrannosaurs were completely scaly because of relatively small skin samples from single species, you also don't account for the degree. Maybe a mane of feathers, maybe a crest at the end of the tail. Maybe patches of them. But apparently skin samples from the hind quarters of an individual clearly shows that none of that is possible.

>>2348882
>You're working on a assumption that unless they're proven feathered, that means there scaled
no I'm not.
scaled skin is known from most dinosaur clades. This isn't an assumption. Phylogenetic bracketing is used to infer feathers OR scales.

>apparently skin samples from the hind quarters of an individual clearly shows that none of that is possible.
We've been over this.
you're not intelligent enough to understand why several random samples lacking feathers is indicative of the entire animal lacking feathers.

this is why you don't do science. The entire concept of science is that a random sample will usually predict the whole.

>>2348883
>The entire concept of science is that a random sample will usually predict the whole.

It's worth saying twice.

this is literally what science is:
using a random sample to predict the whole.

>>2348883
Why start with the ad hominem? This was fairly civil for a while and then you had to go be a dickhead. I'm sorry you're an autist who needs to have his dinosaurs be feathered for them to be spehshul. I'm also sorry that most-all of the paleo community seems to disagree with you. I'm taking about as neutral a stance as possible by saying we don't know.
>The entire concept of science is that a random sample will usually predict the whole.
Quick! Grab a random molecule from the atmosphere and find out what it is. It's most likely nitrogen, so I guess the entire atmosphere must be nitrogen right?
That's what you're doing here.

Btw I'm a paleo major. Only a sophomore, but I still "do science".

I'm going to bed.

>>2348889
>you had to go be a dickhead.
No insult intended.

if you can't understand why more than a dozen random samples are indicative of the whole you're simply not smart enough for science. It's ok, most people aren't.

> I'm a paleo major.
makes me laugh every time.
let me know when you get to the anatomy section, junior. I'll blow your silly little mind.

but we both know you'll never get there. Because you're not a paleo student.

>>2348891
Not him, but if anyone here's Roleplaying as a paleontologist, it's you. Everything you say reeks of arrogant neckbeard-ism and just based on your autism fueled arguments, anti scientific consensus arguments and the fact that it's 6 am and you're up posting on a Rwandan Basket weaving forum, I'd say that you're the one whose not into science.

>>2348902
>I'd say that you're the one whose not into science.
absolutely correct. If I had any role in science I wouldn't be here arguing with the same pretend-paleo student I've been going rounds with for the last 8 years.

I'm no scientist. Not anymore. Doesn't mean I don't read and understand things /an/ will never get.

the anon has learned a lot over the years. But the knowledge is autistic- vast amounts of info memorized but no real grasp of concepts. This is disappointing to me, they're a poor student. But I have hopes they'll come along.

File: 4b2.jpg (19KB, 319x310px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 319x310px

this is a nice thread

>>2348902
>autism fueled arguments
this is actually what I'm trying to walk you past.

anon is too autistic to understand why my points aren't autistic. You're autistic so everything looks like autism to you.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-04 at 13.01.31.png (63KB, 610x321px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 610x321px

Anybody else read about this? Thoughts?

>>2348918
They only took Herrasaurus into consideration out of the basal dinosaurs
They didn't take into consideration the other basal dinosaurs
If they do a study and took more than 1 basal dinosaur into consideration, then arrived at that conclusion, then I would take the study seriously

>>2348904
>Everyone who argues with me is the same person cuz anonymouse is legunn!!!!on11one

you were never a scientist and you're a newfag too. >>>/reddit/

>>2348891
>>2348904
I sure as hell havent been here for 8 years. More like 8 months since I started posting on /an/.

You can come visit me at Ft. Hays State any time you like. I spend alot of my free time in the collections at the Sternberg so that's where I'll probably be.

Anon who asked about the feathers here. Sorry for sparking a derail, but thanks for the insight.

>>2348883
>>2348884
Not really, that's more the general concept of stats.

>>2348891
If all of the samples are from the same general area of the dino, it doesn't sound like a "random sample."

That's like an alien coming here to study humans and only testing from places in Africa. Of course they are going to think all or most humans are darker skinned and relatively primitive. Hint: we aren't. Just like you are assuming that they couldn't possibly have a mane or something because their backside and undercarriage are bare. It's bad science.

>>2348883
>>2348884
no, you use them to make inferences, and never assume anything as a concrete fact until proven

File: D. horneri.jpg (51KB, 582x459px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 582x459px

>>2348968
Lets get this back on track. What do you guys think of the crocodile-faced Daspletosaurus?

>>2348765
>replying to shitposting
you impotent retard

File: 1490708443648.png (768KB, 624x620px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 624x620px

>>2348918
honestly theyve been shuffling the Herrarasaurs and other basal dinosaurs around for years they actually havent moved much as far as phylogeny bracketing goes but it still weirds me out not having Ornithishia more related to theropods rather then the old Sauropod/theropod Saurischia but this format is new and only time will tell if it sticks or is supported

>>2349154
It actually makes subliminally more sense to me to have Theropods as ornithschians. But I guess we'll see if the revision stands the test of time.

>>2348954
>More like 8 months since I started posting on /an/.
shut up bugguy.
>If all of the samples are from the same general area of the dino, it doesn't sound like a "random sample."
they aren't.

But even if they were they'd still be random. As in not selected by humans.

If you picked any 12 points on a chicken you'd get feathers in 11-12 of them. If you picked those same 12 points you'd get feathers in all 12.

The same is true of an ostrich.

coincidentally no bird has scales where Tyrannosaurus did. All of these are solid reasons to expect we'll never find rex feathers.

>>2349188
>>2348997

>>2349188
>s-s-shut up! MY DELUSIONS ARE MORE VALID THAN YOUR LIFE

god you're obsessed aqfag. you have to wonder about the lvl of derangement that can produce such obsession.

>>2349191
bugguy used the same arguments every week for years.

he doesn't just magically become anonymous when he drops his trip.

The "feathers of the gaps" is classic bugguy. It actually takes a fairly stupid person to state it unironically.

>>2349193
>he's the same cuz I analyzed his posting style guys

Did you come from a broken household, by any chance? Divorce in the family? History of mental illness?

>>2349196
if we had an archive that went back 8 years I'd show you that the anon has been forwarding the same argument, word for word, for at least that long.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-04 at 12.27.07 PM.png (166KB, 1810x680px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1810x680px

>>2349193
I am the original person you are arguing with, OI fucking hate insects/arachnids, and this is everything I've posted in this thread
>>2348828
>>2348845
>>2348856
>>2348876
>>2348882
>>2348889
>>2348954
>>2349146
>>2349160

Its not just one person who you're arguing with. Pretty much everyone thinks you're retarded.

>>2349207
you missed one.

I know who you are and I know how long you've been trolling your same stupid argument.

tell me, what's it called in science when your data say one thing so you conclude the opposite?

File: 1482447690475.jpg (44KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 250x250px

>>2349202
So what you're saying is, you have no evidence for your assertion. Got it.

>>2349212
Do you not know how to read post numbers? Look at my fucking screenshot.

Why did dinosaurs evolve feathers rather than fur, anyway?

Why didn't our ancestors evolve feathers too so we could fly by now? ;_;

>>2349243
Ask God

Since dinosaurs are reptiles, could I just sneak up on a T-Rex early in the morning, while it's still chilly, and slit it's throat?

>>2349283
I was reading up on that just an hour ago.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/were-dinosaurs-warm-or-cold-blooded-more-like-lukewarm-scientists-say/

In short: no. Though it's hard to know for sure, by the looks of it many dinosaurs were endotherm or even warm-blooded like birds.

>>2349243
Feathers derived from filaments very similar to mammalian fur from primitive archosaurs. In pterosaurs this filamentous structure is called pycnofiber.

You don't need feathers for flight, as the pterosaur example above and modern bats prove quite well.

>>2349303
>endotherm or even warm-blooded
those are the same thing.

>>2349374
fug, I meant mesotherm

>>2349188
why are you tards so obsessed with biugguy? anyone who ever disagrees with you is bugguy? must be convenient to convince yourself only one person in the world disagrees with you

>>2349243
because feathers are modified scales I think
>>2349283
no they were probably warm-blooded

Dinosaurs are so big, why is everything so small nowadays /an/?

>>2349537
Mammal bones are too dense/heavy for really large land animals and we exist.

>>2349521
>must be convenient to convince yourself only one person in the world disagrees with you
it's how he disagrees.

1. lie and say only one sample exists when there's more than a dozen.
2. fail to grasp that samples are representative.
3. argue that the samples came from areas that aren't feathered on birds.
4. pretend feathers form a cape despite there being no animals ever that grew feathers in a cape.
5. pretend feathered rex is the scientific consensus despite there being 0 published articles supporting it and 2 published articles denying it.

Lots of people disagree on lots of things.
bugguy disagrees on exactly the same things over and over again.

>>2348853
Skin samples don't prove that a dinosaur didn't have feathers, just that it wasn't entirely feathered.

>>2349283
Given that out of the the two closest living relatives to non avian dinosaurs, crocodiles and birds, one group is cold blooded and the other is warm blooded, and they're on opposite sides of the dinosaur family tree, one can infer that warmbloodedness likely either evolved within the dinosaurs or before them.

>>2349579
>Skin samples don't prove that a dinosaur didn't have feathers, just that it wasn't entirely feathered
Proof doesn't exist in science. Proof is a thing found in math and law.

if you take random samples of an animal's skin and that sample doesn't have feathers, it is PROBABLE the animal didn't have feathers. The more unfeathered samples you get the more PROBABLE it becomes that it didn't have feathers.

For example, if we take a sample of a chicken skin what are the odds that sample WON'T have feathers? 5% or less?

let's make it even more realistic- if you take a sample of ostrich skin, what are the odds it BOTH doesn't have feathers AND has scales? About 5%? What if we take that sample from under the tail, the upper thigh, and the belly? 0% chance of scales.

It is POSSIBLE rex had feathers. It's just extremely fucking UNLIKELY. And this is why nobody has ever published peer-refereed science claiming it had feathers. They'd be laughed out of the room. Several famous paleontologists believe it did, but (no surprise) they're all ones that would be greatly embarrassed if it didn't.

>>2349579
The other problem is there are no partially feathered birds in a broad sense. They evolved full feather coverage long before they flew.

and when they lose feathers on part of the body through evolution, they don't magically grow scales on that part. So when we see scales and no feathers there's no analog for that in most dinosaur lineages.

there are two exceptions to this rule, but they're both closely related and plenty of scientists have argued that their "feathers" are not actually feathers like birds have.

>>2349583
>one can infer that warmbloodedness likely either evolved within the dinosaurs or before them.
crocodiles have a 4 chamber heart (warm blooded character) that has evolved a shunt to act like a 3 chamber (cold blooded) one.

because of this some have argued that crocodiles were originally warm blooded, a view that has gained a lot of popularity lately.

in which case endothermy evolved in archosaurs in general long before dinosaurs. This fits some with the recent discovery of feather keratin in embryonic alligator scales. Why have feather keratin if their ancestors weren't fuzzy and warm blooded?

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/adelaidean/issues/5501/news5550.html

File: spinosaurus_concept_sketches_revised_by_raph04art-dayx7ft.jpg (68KB, 1024x490px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1024x490px

Would spinosaurus have made a good war animal at any point in history?

Could the Persians, Egyptians, or even Romans have made them useful to their military or security in general?

File: mainimage1,31975,en.jpg (48KB, 530x355px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 530x355px

Feathers or featherlike protrusion were in development with their branch of archosaurs before they were even truly dinosaurs. This is why even pterosaur (close cousin to dinosaurian) basically had a fuzzy exterior of essentially primitive feathers.


Thus obviously, even the earliest forms of dinosaurs almost certainly had at least some sort of fuzz, bristle, or quills. Then only real question is how much and in what ways (practical, more random, beneficial to survival, flamboyant, or somewhere in the middle of all of these)

>>2349658
Given the fact that no large carnivore has ever been a useful war animal, why do you think Spinos would be different? They almost certainly wouldn't be intelligent enough to train, so the most you could do is let one loose on the enemy, and in that case it's just as likely to turn on your side instead. And that's assuming Spino would even be aggressive towards humans rather than just fucking off to the nearest body of water. Heck, there's only like 4 animals total that have ever really seen significant use in battle. Dog, Horse, Camel, Elephant.

Not to mention that, even if you succeeded in unleashing a Spino onto your enemies, you invested probably millions of calories worth of meat feeding it (and unlike, say, Elephants, Spino eats things that humans can eat) plus the resources required just to capture and hold one. Do you really think the benefit of a War-Spino would be worth all that?

>>2349676
Would these ones really prevent much of a threat to humans? I mean they're tiny and hollow boned. A single kick by an adult man could probably disable one. They're basically just chickens with some pointy bits.

>>2349537
The largest animal ever, the blue whale is alive today. Just because the largest living ancestor of dinosaurs could comfortably fit inside your house doesn't mean that everything is small.

>>2349691
I'm not expert but weren't raptor extremely agile? Also were raptors intelligent or is it a meme?

>>2349702
>I'm not expert but weren't raptor extremely agile?
No idea. I'm not sure if that's even something that's possible to model though. And regardless of their agility I doubt they'd be able to jump high enough get their claws onto the neck of a 6 foot man, and they don't have enough weight to people able to knock someone on the ground either. Attacking the neck seems to be what their hunting strategy was based off of given the fighting dinosaurs fossil, plus it's also the way many predators hunt today.
>Also were raptors intelligent or is it a meme?
Very small brain to body size ratio (based off their cranial cavity) as far as I'm aware, and we have evidence that brain to body size is at least a decent approximation of intelligence in birds given that Corvids and Parrots rate the highest in brain to body size among birds and are also known to be the most intelligent. Given how closely related dromeasurs are to modern birds it's definitely possible this trend continues back to them.

This is pretty much all we have to go on I believe since we of course can't run intelligence tests on extinct animals.

>>2349702
>Also were raptors intelligent or is it a meme?
The question "is [animal] intelligent?" is in itself a meme because there is no standardized way of testing if an animal is "intelligent". Judging the intelligence of extinct animals is even more stupid because we can't cant even observe their behavior and make generalizations based on that.

>>2349723
>Very small brain to body size ratio (based off their cranial cavity) as far as I'm aware
yes.
their EQ was relatively high for a dinosaur, but that's really low compared to birds and mammals.

EQ may not matter as much as forebrain enlargement though. Forebrain is responsible for most higher cognition. Birds and mammals have extremely large forebrains.

Velociraptor was typical for non-avian dinosaurs of its time- it had an enlarged forebrain compared to more primitive dinosaurs and contemporary herbivores, but still nowhere close to a parrot or a mouse.

It was probably in the range of an alligator, as were most carnivorous dinosaurs of the time. Not exactly bright but not entirely a robot.

>>2349629
Why would warm-blooded crocodiiles become more popular than cold-blooded ones, though?

>>2349776
The hypothesis has become more popular because it has several lines of evidence supporting it.

paleontologists don't really have popular views in the sense that the public does.

>>2349786
So it answers the probable "how", not the "why"?

>>2348767
>"Dude, can you please keep it down? I'm drinking here."

>>2349544
samples of only one section of the body are not representative you retard

>>2349738
alligators are smart as fuck you idiot

>>2349615
yeah because dinosaurs didn't have flight feathers. they weren't needed over the whole body. why is this so hard to understand?

>>2349579
or that the conditions weren't right for the preservation of the feathers

>>2349691
>hollow bones are super weak meme
Kick a Cassowary or just an Ostrich. I'll gladly watch the show mate
And they were surely smart enough to defend themselfes

>>2349905
>samples of only one section of the body are not representative you retard
exactly!

the truth is the samples came from multiple parts of the body but you won't admit that.

>>2349905
>samples of only one section of the body are not representative you retard
also of course this is bullshit.

If you take a single random sample of the skin of any animal there's a greater than 90% chance you'll get a representative one.

File: Laughs in Juravenator.jpg (40KB, 600x736px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x736px

>>2350213
>>2349188

>>2350228
more than a dozen patches covering an area of several feet.

If you have to lie for your argument to work, it's a bad argument.

>>2350235
Its good to know that if I post anything about rex having feathers at any time of the day, you will respond within 5 minutes.

>>2350244
you responded to a post I made 25 minutes ago, genius. Of course I'm lurking now.

>>2350216
not true at all

>>2350260
of course it is.
over 90% of animals are over 90% homogeneously covered.

The very few exceptions you can think of are way less than 10% of animals.

Sample a sparrow, you've got a better than 90% chance of getting feathers. Sample a snake, you got a better than 90% chance of scales. Mammal, better than 90% chance of fur. Fish, 90%+ chance of scales.

almost all animals are almost entirely covered by one thing.

>>2349836
>it answers the probable "how", not the "why"?
In science there's only "how," never "why."

What you think of as "why" is actually "how."

ectothermic crocodilians survived while endothermic crocodilians went extinct because a slower metabolism allowed them to benefit from detrivore-based food chains after the trophic collapse of the end-K event.

that's all.
The animals that survived the K-Pg event participated in detrivore-based food webs. That was cold-blooded crocs and not warm-blooded ones.

>>2350473
>That was cold-blooded crocs and not warm-blooded ones
or more specifically,
aquatic crocs, not terrestrial ones.

in this case the location may have been at least as important as trophic level or metabolic strategy.

animals that lived in the water, ground, and trees tended to survive.

>>2350265
alright I'll sample a rhino and conclude that no mammals have fur then

File: Screenshot_20170406-095910.jpg (671KB, 1321x1044px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1321x1044px

Realistic dinosaur.

>>2350550
don't reply to /aq/fag seriously

>>2350592
oh I didn't know it was the same guy

>>2349658

Would have worked for Carthago I guess.

>Unbreachable harbor
>Build wall around city
>Let animal run rampant outside of the walls

>>2349686
> Do you really think the benefit of a War-Spino would be worth all that?

Watching that happen would be worth anything

>>2350550
a random sample.
you have a 99%+ chance of NOT getting a rhino.

Just like you have a 90% or better chance of getting a representative sample any time it's random.

and just like you don't get to choose if your random sample is a rhino, you don't get to decide that your random dinosaur sample isn't representative.

>>2350550
Your analogy is shit because we're not using Tyrannosaurus' lack of feathers to assume all dinosaurs lack feathers. You'd be closer if you sampled a rhino and concluded that rhinos lack fur.

>>2350235
Rex had feathers

>>2350683
Did not. And the only people that think it did bet their career on it.

>>2350690
The entire paleontological community bet there careers on it?

>>2350592
If you say that rex had feathers anywhere on the internet, he will respond within 5 min.

>>2350690
Source?

>>2350701
>The entire paleontological community bet there careers on it?
nope.
>>2350712
https://web.archive.org/web/20120417134949/http://www.xinglida.net/pdf/Xu_et_al_2012_Yutyrannus.pdf

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/giant-feathered-tyrannosaurs/

File: 1483821714041.jpg (153KB, 1024x752px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1024x752px

>>2350703
as usual I'm less interested in rex feathers than I am in how people react to cognitive dissonance when shown that their opinions are counterfactual.

anger is the usual reaction. A tiny fraction will honestly re-assess their opinion when faced with facts that disagree with it.

File: Fedora lord.jpg (26KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x750px

>>2350750

>>2350680
>>2350679
tyrannosaurus isn't completely covered in feathers my dudes

File: t_rex_5_days_challenage__stan__day_3__by_chaptorcho-dazli0h.png (917KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 1000x800px

>>2349669
True, but it is mainly the later Coelurosauria that show signs of more advance fathers than the more hairlike fuzz of earlier dinosaurs.


Regardless, all dinosaurs almost certainly had at least some sort of coat rather than a hide of mostly scales.

>>2350783
>tyrannosaurus isn't completely covered in feathers my dudes
nobody is saying it is.

I'm saying there's a better than 90% chance it was covered completely in scales.

File: dinomummy.jpg (208KB, 665x1000px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 665x1000px

>>2350807
>all dinosaurs almost certainly had at least some sort of coat rather than a hide of mostly scales.
except for the hundreds of species we know were entirely scaled.

>>2348874
>We don't actually have feathers from Utahraptor or Deinonychus
but we have their bones, and these definitely show that they had real feathers on their arms

>>2350958
>but we have their bones, and these definitely show that they had real feathers on their arms
neither of those animals has feather scars on the forearm. There's no direct evidence either one had feathers.

this is true of most feathered dinosaurs.

>>2348729

ur not real man

>>2350882
Couldn't they have had feathers on top of those scales

>>2351301
yeah. these fools can't wrap it around their heads that the feathers dinos had were not the same as the ones current birds have.

>>2351301
feathers are modified scales actually

birds don't have scales under their feathers because the same structure is used for scales and feathers, you can't have both in the same spot

>>2351411
>The proteins that make feathers in living birds are completely unlike the proteins that make reptilian scales today. Feathers originate in a skin layer deep under the outer layer that forms scales. It is very unlikely that feathers evolved from reptilian scales, even though that thought is deeply embedded in the minds of too many paleontologists. Feathers probably arose as new structures under and between reptile scales, not as modified scales. Many birds have scales on their lower legs and feet where feathers are not developed, and penguins have such short feathers on parts of their wings that the skin there is scaly for all practical purposes. So there is no real anatomical problem in imagining the evolution of feathers on a scaly reptilian skin. But feathers evolved in theropods as completely new structures, and any reasonable explanation of their origin has to take this into account.

>>2351594
all true.

however when we say they evolved from scales we don't necessarily mean they evolved from reptilian scales.

reptilian scales themselves evolved numerous times, so reptilian scales didn't even evolve from reptilian scales.

More importantly, the scales on birds today evolved from feathers, so they tell us nothing about they type of scale feathers evolved from.

>>2351599
>the scales on birds today evolved from feathers, so they tell us nothing about they type of scale feathers evolved from.
and this is why ultimately we can't use bird scales as a model of how non-avian dinosaur scales might have worked.

it's true that birds don't have scales and feathers in the same places but only because bird scales ARE MODIFIED FEATHERS. Birds completely lost scales at some point, grew feathers, and then evolved some of those feathers back into scales.

So it's possible to have feathers or at least filaments between the scales, just like we see in Kulindadromeus.

Ultimately the reason we don't infer feathers in dinosaur skin samples covered with scales is we would expect to see EITHER the filaments themselves preserved, or the spaces between the scales where the filaments grew preserved.

as we see in Kulindadromeus. In all other scaled dinosaur skin samples neither evidence of feathers between the scales is found.

>>2348828
Why is allosaurus not feathered? Is it a primal dinosaur compared to other ones? Was it around before feathers were on dinosaurs?

>>2351616
There are 2 possibilities:
1. feathers evolved long after Allosaurus
2. feathers evolved before Allosaurus and were then lost in most dinosaur lineages including Allosaurus.

The first requires feathers to have evolved at least twice,
the second requires feathers to have evolved once and then been lost hundreds of times.

So the first evolution requires 2 steps while the second requires hundreds. Generally the evolutionary path with the fewest steps is assumed to be the one that happened (Occam's razor). So currently most scientists hold the opinion that feathers evolved after Allosaurus.

Not after in the sense of time, since feathered dinosaurs certainly existed when Allosaurus was alive. But after in the evolutionary lineage sense. Allosaurus was primitive to feathered dinosaurs. More basal, less derived.

>>2351616
Where this raises a question is in Concavenator, a derived allosauroid with quill knobs on the forearm indicating feathers.

If Concavenator is indeed an allosauroid then feathers evolved independently a third time in Allosauroidea.

Several scientists have pointed out that Allosauroidea and Tyrannosauroidea are generally indistinguishable though. So it is quite possible that Concavenator isn't proof of feathers evolving independently in allosauroids- rather that it's simply misclassified. This has been suggested for tyrannosauroids as well. It's quite possible that the mess we have regarding feathers isn't real, the confusion is arising because some animals have been classified incorrectly.

>>2348729
There are cave paintings of dinosaurs.

File: 1491397822685s.jpg (3KB, 125x122px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x122px

>>2348824
The "too big would overheat" meme is completely baseless and straight up false.

As pretty much every argument against feathers. Dinos obviously weren't all feathered the same way, 'cause you know, diversity. But feathers were a basal trait.

>>2351681
>feathers were a basal trait.
only if we ignore almost all of the evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/03/most-dinosaurs-had-scales-not-feathers-fossil-analysis-concludes

File: owl feet.jpg (109KB, 474x316px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 474x316px

>>2351301
>>2350882

Scales, smooth skin and feathers all coexist in birds, it's not one of the other. Feathers can come in between scales easily.

File: microraptor-threat-display.jpg (225KB, 800x680px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 800x680px

Can we have a dino thread without it devolving into scalefags vs featherfags? You don't even post images, just argue. For fuck's sake.

I think videos like this one talk about the subject in a fair enough light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5JN__15-g

File: david_peters__2013_vision.png (962KB, 770x950px) Image search: [Google]

962KB, 770x950px

This thread needs some David Peters. He has the answers all other paleontologists fail to grasp. Take that, feather apologists!

>>2351686
However the dinosaurs none of us wanted to be feathery are the exact ones that were probably feathered in some manner, like t-rex

>>2351703
>tfw huge big bad lizard monsters were actually turkeys

>>2348765
Jesus fuck, everything you don't like is just /pol/ isn't it?

>>2348874
>hey guys, this bird's foot is scaly
>the rest of the bird is scaly

>hey guys there's some hair from this whale chin
>whales are hairy

You are a massive tard

If we find scales are feathers then we know they exist *somewhere* on the body, but we cant know if the entire body has them or doesnt have other coverings based off of a tiny section

>>2351616
I said that it was certain that those dinosaurs had feathers. I think its definitely possible that allosaurus had integument though, probably fairly sparse.

>>2351800
try to comprehend the argument.

if you get a random sample of a whale's skin there's a better than 90% chance it won't have hair on it.

If you get a random sample of a bird there's a better than 90% chance it won't have scales on it.

and this holds true for over 90% of animals.

so if you find a random patch of scales on a dinosaur there's a better than 90% chance that dinosaur was covered in scales. Not a 100% chance, but better than 90%.

Odds are better than 90% your random whale skin won't have hair, your random bird skin won't have scales, and your random patch of dinosaur skin will have whatever the dinosaur was covered in.

Pretending a 10% chance is just as likely as a 90% one is your error. Just because something can happen one time out of ten doesn't mean it probably did.

>>2351801
>I think its definitely possible that allosaurus had integument though, probably fairly sparse.
several large skin impressions are known from Allosaurus.

they had small scales covering their body. No fibers or filaments.

File: 1480688113467.jpg (10KB, 358x422px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 358x422px

So the scales on the ones that have them, were they more like Snakes with the overlapping layers? or more like an alligator?
and also did they shed their skin?

>>2351877
>were they more like Snakes with the overlapping layers? or more like an alligator?
more like an alligator. There's at least one known dinosaur with snake-like scales though.

It's possible they shed their skin, but probably like birds and alligators do- a single scale at a time or small patches. Not all at once.

>>2351886
>There's at least one known dinosaur with snake-like scales though.
that's cool, which one was that?

File: pic-Kulscale3.jpg (684KB, 1635x1422px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1635x1422px

>>2351893
Kulindadromeus had several types of external overlapping scales. It also had tufted feather-type fuzz on parts of the body.

There's another one I read about that also had overlapping external scales but I can't remember where I read it. It was at least 5 years ago and I think in Germany. Published by Rauhut in German I think.

Pic related, Kulindadromeus scales.

>>2351785
>the dinosaurs none of us wanted to be feathery are the exact ones that were probably feathered in some manner, like t-rex
What we want has nothing to do with reality.

In the case of Tyrannosaurus we have fossil evidence saying it wasn't feathered and taxonomic evidence saying it was.

which is more likely to be mistaken, taxonomy or rocks?

The wise scientist will trust the rocks over taxonomy every time.

>>2349933
>or that the conditions weren't right for the preservation of the feathers
sorry, I missed your post.
You're exactly right.

if there's a preservation bias favoring scales over feathers you're dead on. This is a real possibility that can't be ignored.

feathers don't generally grow from scaled skin though, and when they do we generally find evidence of that.

>>2348902
>anti scientific consensus arguments

I don't get this.The guy you're responding to is an idiot and arrogant, but we'd have little scientific progress if we frowned upon those who go against what has already been decided as true. We *need* anti-consensus arguments to either find something new or to strengthen the existing consensus

It makes me sad and angry that modern 'science' is basically trying to get as much grant money as you can while laughing at anything that doesn't fit into the existing model or goes against our current biases

>>2351686
And far into the future, when whales are extinct and fossilized, the next sentient rules of the Earth will dig up their bones, find some small skin samples and say....

>Whales weren't mammals, neither were dolphins, etc...
>We can see this because every skin sample we have from this group shows smooth bare skin!

>>2348760
T-rex looks impressed by the raptor playing with its food.

>>2349686
I imagine that it depends on how aggressive the predator is
If Spino was a pussy little bitch then it'd be worthless, but having your army pull cages built to contain angry pissed off and absolutely *mean* predators with you wouldn't be too bad

Don't feed them on your march as much as you can

If you're trying to attack a city it could be helpful to let them loose, or if you're defending a city let them loose.
If you have a surefire way of repelling them away from your side or manipulating them to go towards the enemy they'd be helpful too

Whatever happens I want to watch

>>2349691
Modern large birds are dangerous to humans, and they don't even eat meat.

Fucking prairie dogs can fuck you up just because of their claws
Small parrots can wreck your shit if they want to

Considering these guys hunted in groups they're instantly dangerous because you won't be able to prevent one from gutting you while you fend off the other

>>2350235
>dozens of patches of scales
>from the feet

KEK
E
K

>>2351920
We have no fossil evidence saying it was not feathered
We have fossil evidence saying that it had scales in some areas of the body.
I don't know if rex was feathered or not but I think it's likely.

I got a question for you. Let's say that you have a bunch of siblings (not yours), you can't see them except for small patches. However you know their parents and their uncles/aunts mostly had blonde hair. Their grandparents mostly had blonde hair. Their cousins mostly have blonde hair. The kids of this group of siblings have entirely blonde hair.

What was the hair color of this group of siblings?

You are saying
>they had no hair because I can some skin on them and only skin.

I wasn't saying what we want matters, just making a comment on the irony of how plebs only dislike feathers because it's 'silly' yet the dinosaurs most likely to have had feather coverings are supposed to have been our scariest

>>2352072
>from the feet
That's not what he said.

>>2352076
Ah I see, you can see how I might have read that incorrectly

What parts of the body did this cover?

>>2352049
don't mistake anything on 4chan for science. These guys aren't scientists. Scientists innately understand the things I'm saying and would just agree with them.
>>2352073
>We have no fossil evidence saying it was not feathered
scaled skin samples are considered sufficient evidence in all other dinosaurs, so why are you pretending they aren't in Tyrannosaurus?

Phylogenetic bracketing? Bracketing indicates ALL dinosaurs have feathers. So that argument doesn't hold water. Either bracketing works and all scaled skin samples are anomalous or for whatever reason it doesn't work and T. rex scales are sufficient evidence it lacked feathers.

We don't get to make exceptions for the delicate feelings of certain very likable paleontologists.

>>2352080
>What parts of the body did this cover?
Upper thigh, underside of the tail, and lower belly.

Larson also interpreted on bit as coming from the neck. He also found skin with his "Nanotyrannus" "fighting dinosaurs" fossil, but I don't know what parts he attributed that to.

We also have skin from Tarbosaurus which many consider to be Tyrannosaurus, as well as a couple other closely related tyrannosaurids (Daspletosaurus, Albertosaurus) which is also scaled.

>>2352063
Nobody's saying Tyrannosaurus isn't a dinosaur because it lacked feathers.

All they're saying is some dinosaurs had feathers and others didn't, just like some mammals have fur and some don't. The more interesting question scientifically is if feathers were the basal condition or if scales were. So far scales are far more common than feathers. Meaning feathers likely evolved in dinosaurs at least twice.

>>2348760
That rat is thinking. Someday, I shall rule this pathethic planet!!!

>>2350174
The Cassowary would use itself as bait, while, from the side, his silent fella attacks the puny human.

File: dinosaur.jpg (663KB, 1000x843px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 1000x843px

>>2352171

>>2352073
Don't argue with this loser. Hopefully, he'll just go away if we stop giving him (you's).

>>2352175
People will always argue because everything I say:
1. Runs counter to public opinion
2. Is easily verified fact.

>>2348835
Wouldn't Tyrannosaurus be naked instead of scaly? As in rough skin.

>>2352273
It would be if it descended from fully feathered ancestors such as Yutyrannus.

I think the current view is that they lost feathers over time and magically grew scales in their place. A violation of Dollo's Law but not one worth writing a citation over.

File: 1484258333570.png (356KB, 599x510px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 599x510px

>>2348720
>>2348760
>>2348761
>>2348763
>>2348769
>>2348790
>>2348828
>>2349658
>>2349676
>feathered dinosaurs

p-please delete this

File: srep44942-f4.jpg (126KB, 926x730px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 926x730px

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep44942

The beauty in science and paleontlogy is that nothing is set in stone (pun intended) and it's a detective work. Fighting over what was true and not is pointless, there's only whats more likely at a given time depending on our current knowledge and works.

It's not because a new study comes up that everything changes. We continue studying and that's it. It's a constantly evolving narrative and people who get hang up on Scales vs Feathers just want a simple answer and are not thinking scientificaly.

CHILL!

le 90%

>>2352137
I just emailed Larson and he does not rule out the likelihood of certain portions of adult rexes being feathered. He actually has a paper coming out in a few days that will be very relevant to the discussion.

File: gPu2Bn0.jpg (57KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 564x423px

>>2352170
>>2352171
>>2352174
dinosaurs never stopped being terrifying desu

>>2352342
>I just emailed Larson and he does not rule out the likelihood of certain portions of adult rexes being feathered.
Neither did I.

can't you read?

>>2352383
>likelihood.

you've been screaming for the past few days about how when we find patches of skin that has scales, it means the entire animal is probably scaled. Larson says that he finds it likely that they retained portions of feathers.

>>2352384
>Larson says that he finds it likely that they retained portions of feathers.
I never quoted him as saying anything on the subject, and I have freely admitted that those who've staked their career on it disagree with me.

The only paleontologists that have gone on record agreeing with me have already been listed.

The fact remains that scales have been published for Tyrannosaurus and its sister a number of times while nobody has ever published anything in the literature stating that they were feathered. Because so far all the evidence indicates they weren't.

I don't believe Larson emailed you either way.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-08 at 5.30.56 PM.png (189KB, 1918x1032px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1918x1032px

>>2352391
Some people aren't so far up there own ass and neurotic that they consider replying to a lowly non scientist degrading.

How does it feel to be wrong all the time?

>>2352414
>Some people aren't so far up there own ass and neurotic that they consider replying to a lowly non scientist degrading
I've been replying to you for years in case you haven't noticed.

>>2352417
And thats something else you get wrong. I'm not "bugguy" I'm a sophomore at Ft Hays State in Kansas whose only been posting on 4chan for less than a year. I will post a picture of my face if you don't believe me.

>>2352421
>I'm not "bugguy"
he was more than one person.

Nothing you could possibly post would convince me you aren't the same person I've been having this argument with for years.

the person I advised to study paleontology over 4 years ago, the person I told to email Larson at least 2 years ago.

the problem isn't just that you bring the exact same tired arguments year after year, but that you also make the same mistakes year after year. If your mistakes were common I could see other people making them, but they're not.

>>2352425
You've called multiple different people in this thread "bugguy" assuming that all of them were me. Thats how neurotic and ridiculous you are. You're so arrogant that you assume that anyone that disagrees with you must just be a single person. It's not. Everyone thinks you're retarded.

>>2352425
Holy shit so you see everyone that disagrees with you as a single entity. Are you schizo?

>>2352430
I'm not the board janitor.
I can't see people's IP's.

I can only recognize the same tired arguments that have been broached repeatedly on this board for years.

And with the Dutchman gone I can see that it was just one person all along. Well, one person other than me.

>>2352434
compare how many posts I've called bugguy to how many I've made.

then you'll see how ridiculous you sound. Lots of people disagree with me, that's why I post. One of them says the same things every time.

>>2352434
yes he is. don't reply to him. he calls everyone who doesn't like outdoor cats bugguy as well

>>2352463
>he calls everyone who doesn't like outdoor cats bugguy as well
Only when you make the same arguments bugguy always took the blame for.

>>2352463
lmao isn't this level of autism grounds for a ban?

>>2352463
Weird how nobody has posted an /aq/ thread while we've been arguing. Probably just busy I guess.

Perhaps one of us has done the board a favor.

>>2352471
he isn't going to ban me. He hasn't banned me for- what's it been? 3 years now?

>>2348763
Wtf? Ornithomimus were huge. Why is it in a fucking tree with it? They're not fucking Leopards.

>>2349146
I love how they said it had "scales like a crocodile" then proceeded to illustrate a lizard.

>>2349193
I seriously hope you're not implying bugguy is the only idiot who believes in magical fairy chicken rex. That fucking stupid Saurian game has a clown rex.

>>2350746
>Chinese hoaxes are proof
Tired of this meme. I literally can't even take the entire field of Paleontology seriously since they hopped on the Chinese fossil hoax trade dick.

>>2351301
Couldn't you have a dick your mouth while you're shitposting? What the fuck is featherfaggots' fucking problem? You bitch, whine and moan about everyone not jumping on your chickensaurus bullshit, then the evidence you produce is "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WRONG!", which is patently false because often WE CAN. Triceratops wasn't a parrot. Get over it.

>>2351697
>Pick an outlier that evolved feathered feet AFTER THE FACT to deal with bitter cold
>THIS IS THE NORM!!!!
Are you fucking idiots creationists or something?

>>2351785
Yeah! Just like how Elephants, Rhinos and Hippos are all furry because Rabbits are. Large animals don't require integument for thermal regulation, and despite featherfags' attempts at apologetics, that's most likely why they exist. Same with fur. Let's also not forget that we're talking about massive animals, larger than any living on land now, living in a TROPICAL environment.
>But muh Ostriches!
>But muh Emus!
Are they the size of Intricotheres? NOPE.

>like t-rex
This is what we call projection. YOU want T-Rex to be feathered, but it is VERY unlikely to have been.

>>2351796
It actually is at this point. This site is pure cancer since gg and donald shit.

>>2351791
Not likely the big ones. I guess big mammals are furry, right?

>>2351920
>taxonomic
Back that shit up, dumb nigger. This is always a shit argument because Dinosaur taxonomy/phylogeny is basically a crap shoot. You can't rely on the cladistics of an animal whose cladistics you don't fucking know with any degree of certainty at all. You're actually giving featherfaggots more credit than they deserve.

>>2352063
>Yet another fucking retarded argument
I see the problem now. Featherfaggots just have low IQs.

>>2352162
>And then I'll fucking ruin it and turn it into a smoldering shell!

>>2352073
>You can't prove it's not!
That's not science. You're looking for creationism.

>>2352342
Oh look there it is again.
>You can't prove it's not with 100% certainty!
>Therefore it is!
Neck your retarded fucking self.

File: Carnotaurus.jpg (367KB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1920x1040px

Anyone ever seen a scientific discrepancy in media that they wish were true?

>If only Carnotaurus was this big and bulky.

File: God I wish that were me.jpg (79KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1280x720px

>>2352611
I was literally just paraphrasing what a paleontologist I've been emailing told me. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with him.

>>2352615
You still have Titanovenator, more or less.

Without a doubt Liopleurodon. The day I found out that there never was a giant saurian leviathan that could kill a blue whale, is the day dinosaurs started losing there magic for me and became just regular animals.

>>2352594
that's because they let a deviantart faggot design the dinos. look up arvalis on deviantart. he's famous for making retarded """""""realistic""""""" pokemon art

>>2352600
he's saying there are feathers AND scales on the feet. no doubt dinosaurs evolved feathers AFTER having scales

>>2352605
>This is always a shit argument because Dinosaur taxonomy/phylogeny is basically a crap shoot. You can't rely on the cladistics of an animal whose cladistics you don't fucking know with any degree of certainty at all.
that was my point.

the fossils aren't mistaken.
Only taxonomists interpretations of them.

>>2352677
>no doubt dinosaurs evolved feathers AFTER having scales
the scales they have now aren't the ones they had then. They lost all their scales and then re-evolved them.

another violation of Dollo's Law.

>>2352673
>You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with him.
Not that anon but I've actually said all this stuff to Holtz before. It left me feeling very bad. Like arguing with Feduccia about bird evolution would.

These folks have published slight mistakes that piled up into huge blunders and now they're forced to defend them or look like fools. It's not a nice thing to watch. But it doesn't matter, time will do what I and others don't have the stomach to do.

Where do you guys get your prehistoric news?

>>2352706
/an/ is actually a decent source for a lot of stuff.

mostly because of the faggot OP and his constant lurking of dinosaur forums.

>>2352706
Personally I have paid subscriptions to JVP and Biology Letters as well as a JSTOR account.

Most of what I read comes from Academia.edu . I'm not sure if you can join that without actually being a scientist though.

>>2352706
I'd also give the same advice I've given to OP in the past- join facebook paleo forums. Lots of dinosaur paleontologists and students post there regularly and any breaking articles are usually linked there.

File: ostrich___jurassic_park_version_by_raph04art-db112na.jpg (195KB, 792x612px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 792x612px

"Birbs are still birbs in spite of what one wishes them to be."
-Philosoraptor

File: five scientific reasons to kill yourself.jpg (83KB, 878x814px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 878x814px

>>2352289
feathered dinos are cooler fag

File: 1874087885_ca6e0fc79f_z.jpg (93KB, 500x482px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x482px

>>2350882
>We know were MOSTLY/LARGELY scaly, thus far.
There could be feathers on the parts of those species missing skin impressions, or even small featherlike protrusions in between the feathers

Of hidden under feathers>>2351697

>>2353171
>Or SCALES under feathers
Sorry for the slight typo

File: saurian_tyrannosaurus_lifecycle_by_arvalis-d9dwo0o.jpg (3MB, 8252x2497px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 8252x2497px

Tyrannosaur growth from juvenile to adult.

File: rexy.jpg (108KB, 1080x426px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1080x426px

>>2353178
I can kinda see this one.

Feathers being more present on infants, juveniles.

File: tyrannosaurus_rex_2016_by_arvalis-da9vcdk.jpg (3MB, 6000x2525px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6000x2525px

>>2353193
Why not the adults, as well? They are known to have lived in places cold enough to snow, were endothermic, and could definitely use an insulating layer of rough feathers to preserve heat. Feathers on most dinosaurs was basically like fur is to mammals.

>>2349669
>>2350807
What evidence do either of you have that even early Dinosaurs had any sort of "fur"?

>>2351587
Fucking saved. God damned featherfags.

>>2352591
The "scales like a crocodile" are around the snout only.

>>2352673
No, you're shoving words into his mouth, like you featherfaggots always do.

>T-Rex could have had some feathers and the young may have been covered in something like down
>totally reasonable
>OMG did you here, furaffinity?! He just said T-Rex was a chicken! Take that non-otherkin!

>>2352699
The point is that one doesn't exclude the other, my god.

>>2353305
Occam's Razor, faggot. Just use that instead of featherfaggotry from now on and you'll be golden.

>>2353305
>The point is that one doesn't exclude the other
you can't know that from birds because their scales aren't the same thing as non-avian dinosaur scales.

>>2352697
>the fossils aren't mistaken.
I'd argue against that also. A lot of the "fruity" fossils showing up are all from China. That's not coincidence in my view. China is well-known for having an entire industry of fucking with fossils to create hoaxes for profit.

Feathers radiate heat more than fur.

The whole "feathers = fur" and "elephants and rhinos dont have hair!(retarded btw)" arguments are weak.

Just saying. I don't give a fuck about dinos being this or that, I love animals, and I love the possibilities. Any knowledge that leads as closer to the truth is valid.

>>2353311
>I'd argue against that also.
yes, and you often have over the years, haven't you?

I don't find that argument worth the time.
you want to pretend feathered fossils are all fakes, be my guest.

>>2353283
>>2351587
Are you stupid? The post wants flight feathers to have been developed after flight itself. HOW? Are you dumb?!

>>2353308
So you're saying non-avian dinosaur scales couldn't have existed alongside feathers? Because that's all I implied.

>>2353317
gliding flight doesn't require flight feathers, powered flight does.

either way velociraptor and tyrannosaurus never flew so they should never have flight feathers.

>>2353319
>that's all I implied.
you used a bird as an example.
I was pointing out that the example doesn't work.

that's all.
whether non-avian dinosaurs had non-feather derived scales alongside feathers isn't currently known.

>>2353306
This is gorgeous
So alien yet so real

File: so alien.jpg (40KB, 530x353px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 530x353px

>>2353323

>>2353171
Oh look it's the "feathers of the gaps" argument ONCE AGAIN. STOP. NOW.

You know, I think Dinosaurs actually had micro-penises between their scales! There's no evidence saying they didn't!

>>2353309
Man, Pterosaurs were so neat. It's a shame we lost them.

>>2353316
>yes, and you often have over the years, haven't you?
Indeed I have. Someone has to, since all you blind morons just stick to whatever you think is cool. You're the same idiots who think we're going to be mining asteroids for trillions in profits when the activity is totally unachievable. You don't care about facts. You only care about what you think is "cool". And I have to say, your tastes are shit.

>>2353317
That's not what it's saying, you fucking idiot.

>>2353321
THIS. FUCKING TRANSITION. Another comment backing up my view that featherfaggots are just creationists in paleontologist hats.

File: 1477049967607.jpg (72KB, 595x864px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 595x864px

>>2353328

People like you seem to have always seen dinosaurs as "cool monsters" and not as animals. Otherwise you wouldn't be so butthurt about this shit. Many people complain about "dinos not being cool with feathers". That's such a childish motivation.

I like a scaly T-Rex. But no one ever said Rex had flight feathers as >>2353321 implied.

There are featherfags that go nuts, but imagination is harmless when it's treated as that, and paleoartists do have to explore posibilities.

You seem like an extremist. And extreme oposite of a feather nut. And this is my first dino thread on /an/ too. Please, don't go explode any museums.

File: 1475170830006.jpg (56KB, 640x696px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x696px

Can we have more images and chill? Is there a better board for paleo threads?

>>2353336
>People like you seem to have always seen dinosaurs as "cool monsters" and not as animals
No, I'm interested in Dinosaurs AS THEY ARE. I like Paleontology and Biology. Or I did before moronic sub-hipsters from facebook started trying to turn all Deer and Cows into carnivores and Dinosaurs into chickens.

>I like a scaly T-Rex
Nobody cares what you like, faggot. And that's the problem here. Listen to my next statement and listen carefully:

THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT EVERY FUCKING DINOSAUR BEING A CHICKEN.

It's not there. You're making it up. You grasp at whatever scraps you want and even when the evidence is COUNTER to what you want, you STILL fucking make up "feathers of the gaps" arguments, just like creationists to """"prove"""" - and I wish I could say I didn't know why you were obsessed with T-Rex, but we all know why you feathercunts are - that all dinosaurs, especially T-Rex were giant chickens. I'm sorry, they were not. It doesn't matter what you like. It doesn't matter which paleontologist you misquote or which bullshit fossil from China you point to that isn't even the same species as the ones you're arguing about.

YOU FEATHERFAGGOTS ARE FACTUALLY WRONG.

And that's all that matters. End of discussion.

>>2353336
>But no one ever said Rex had flight feathers
Also, this is a lie. ALL Therapods are depicted with flight feathers in modern art. ALL of them. Excluding NONE. It's retarded, it's anti-scientific and it's a featherkin's wet dream come true.

>>2353336
>Otherwise you wouldn't be so butthurt about this shit
Oh, and I'm "butthurt" about it, because I am sick to death of stupid morons butting into intellectual pursuits that are FAR above their IQ pay grade and polluting them with their stupidity. Yeah, it's pretty infuriating when the popular discussion on any scientific subject is majority non-factual nonsense defended violently against actual EVIDENCE. It tends to piss someone off who cares about the truth.

>>2353325
That's what I was thinking, the gigantoraptor in the artwork was like a huge cassowary with a reptilian twist
Fucking awesome

>>2353339
Are there any good animal/dinosaur forums and/or boards outside of /an/?
/an/ is the only reasonably active place on the internet I know of that talks about animals and dinosaurs

>>2353304
And now you're shoving words into my mouth. I have NEVER said that Tyrannosaurus was completely feathered. My personal opinion is that they had some kind of mane or crest or sparse feathers on certain areas.

>>2353340
Lmao, Nice Strawman.

>>2353376
>I have NEVER said that Tyrannosaurus was completely feathered.
Well of course you can't, now can you? Becauase we already have fucking skin casts of about half the god damned body. So you try now to claim clown Rex is a thing, you moron faggots.

>My personal opinion is that they had some kind of mane or crest or sparse feathers on certain areas.
And gee, I fucking wonder why that is? Also, it's not "your" opinion. It's facebook-tier trash you're regurgitating because you think reading some nonsense, then repeating it mindlessly is really neato.

>>2351681
Holy shit what book is this picture from, I remember staring at this exact picture every time I opened the book when I was a little single digit age.

>>2353391
It's from a ken ham book, I know because I bought it from the shops when I was little
It also had firebreathing parasaurolophus

>>2353336
>no one ever said Rex had flight feathers as >>2353321 implied.
the quote we are discussing did.

learn to read.

>>2353381
What do you have against straw? Are you seriously trying to deduce my argument and the history of my opinions all from a single post?

File: rjpalmer_dakotaraptor_conceptart_001_by_arvalis-d9ev6iw.jpg (114KB, 1024x355px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x355px

>>2352589

Dakotaraptor is also a large animal. It's also quite probable to have been a good climber, so why not take the food up a fallen tree?

>>2349611
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the skin samples we have of T-rex from the legs and tail? Areas that are known to be scaly in many dinosaurs that also had feathers covering their torso and parts of the head? Finding scales there hardly disproves them having feathers.

Taking a sample of someone's skin wouldn't prove that they were covered in dense hair if it were from the scalp, an area known to have dense hair in many people who don't have much hair elsewhere. Likewise, finding a skin sample from a dinosaur's tail, legs, face, etc doesn't prove they were covered in scales, because those are areas known not to be feathered in other dinosaurs that have feathers.

>>2352289
>Anime pic
>not liking cute dinos
Wtf

>>2350584
really makes u think

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

430KB, 1975x672px

mummified T. Rex when?

>>2353487
>Correct me if I'm wrong,
ok.
>Areas that are known to be scaly in many dinosaurs that also had feathers
>many dinosaurs
one. maybe.

out of 43 known feathered dinosaurs, one had scales both places. And even then it had feathers there as well.

> those are areas known not to be feathered in other dinosaurs that have feathers.
again, this is incorrect.

thank you for trying. Go read about dinosaurs now.

>>2353487
It's not the legs in general, it's the upper thigh.

98% of feathered dinosaurs lack scales on the upper thigh. So we would expect based on that location alone a 2% likelihood that rex had feathers on the rest of his body.

it's that rare.

if we add birds to the sample the likelihood drops to 0. Out of about 10,000 species of bird, none have scales on the upper thigh.

>>2353505
>we would expect based on that location alone a 2% likelihood that rex had feathers on the rest of his body.
it's actually much lower since we have biased the sample by only using feathered dinosaur.

while only 2% of feathered dinosaurs have scales on the upper thigh and base of the tail,
100% of scaled dinosaurs have scales in those places.

so it depends on which groups we compare. If we assume rex had feathers, there's a 2% chance we're right. If we don't make any assumptions that chance drops to 0.

File: super reach grabber.jpg (17KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 450x450px

>>2353507
>>2353505

File: huge cock.webm (2MB, 720x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x1080px

>>2352378

Even when domesticated they're pretty swole

>>2348720
real??? maybe

Scored a job at a dinosaur museum lads, only for their on-season and a bit either side, but if I'm lucky again I'll get a summer job afterwards elsewhere. Should have a good 15 month period of digs and tour guiding by March next year.

>>2353596
but whats your stance on chicken rexs?

>>2353596
>thinks museum guides work on digs
kek

File: 1477683210954.jpg (307KB, 1024x1929px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1024x1929px

>>2353497
It won't make a difference. Evidence is fake and proof is being covered-up by the conspiracy to ruin childhood preconceptions.

>>2353508
So far only 2 comments out of 270 have actually addressed the statistical argument against rex feathers with valid lines of reasoning:
>>2349933
>>2353487

If you could show that either feathers are way less likely to be preserved than scales, or that it was very common for feathered dinosaurs to have scales on the underside of the tail, belly, and upper thigh, then the statistical argument fails.

So far these are the only potentially valid criticisms I've seen from /an/ on the subject. Unfortunately neither criticism is true.

>>2353940
Are you that sour cunt I ran into last time I posted when I was applying for the job, desperate to misinterpret whatever I said just to backtalk me? I don't expect to be paid for digging, that's voluntary, nor did I say so. Most of the digs aren't associated with that museum but are ones I'm signed up for when my contract ends. Lighten up.

>>2354037
>misinterpret whatever I said
when you say you got a job doing A and now you'll spend all season doing A and B, you imply that B is part of your job.

you're a lying sack of shit, nobody is misinterpreting anything. You're trying to mislead.

>>2354046
A season isn't 15 months either, stop being a petulant faggot.

>>2354053
stop trying to mislead these poor lost lambs

File: cute little parasaur.png (626B, 45x32px) Image search: [Google]

626B, 45x32px

cute

>>2353944
(you)

>>2348765
>"dinosaurs are not real"
>GO BACK TO /POL/
I can't tell if you are trolling or have legit autism

>>2348761
clever girl

>>2348729
Dude, whoa. Is anything real? Am I real? How do I know if my consciousness isn't just an illusion? Whoooooaaa man.

Shit's far out.

>>2348918
it makes a lot of sense but they didn't need to keep saurischia, just redefine sauropodomorpha as LCA of herrerasaurus+diplodocus

nobody has really thought of dinosaurs as the two orders for years now, except when trying to figure out the herrerasaurs/staurikosaurs placement. it's really 3 distinct clades (theropoda, sauropodomorpha, ornithischia) and after the triassic/earliest jurassic the ornithoscelida hypothesis doesn't really affect much
that being said, basal theropods and basal ornithischians are very similar and it could be that the paucity of incontrovertible triassic ornithischians is suggestive of ornithischians evolving from theropods

>>2353339
>>2353349
DML

>>2349676
bernie sanders backup plan :D

>>2353328
there are feathered dinosaurs from outside of China. lots of evidence for feathered theropods (and indeed ornithischians, if their integumentary structures are homologous with coelurosaurian feathers) from places outside Liaoning province - including North America (things like quill knobs on the ulnae of certain theropods, which indicate pennate feathers were present)
the probability of a massive hoax, with unscrupulous paleontologists parading forged fossils around, is exceedingly low. Fred Hoyle tried to demonstrate that Archaeopteryx was a fake, and failed miserably. Indeed, the Archaeoraptor affair, oft-cited ammo for BANDits, has nothing to do with faked *feathers* since the feather impressions on the fossil were indeed real, although the specimen was a composite on more than 1 slab. Dinosaurs definitely had feathers. Not all taxa, not everywhere on their bodies, but we KNOW that many did. Similarly, there is an equally overwhelming body of evidence for the ancestor-descendant relationship between theropods and birds.

File: parasaurolophus_bust_.jpg (307KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1024x768px

>>2354061
>>2348720
Anyone hear about that new soft tissue Parasaurolophus? Its paper has yet to released but apparently the famous crest was larger probably a display structure

>>2354737
find that paper pls

>>2353309

this is the ugliest being i have ever seen

>>2348918
wat

>>2349686
>Given the fact that no large carnivore has ever been a useful war animal
Well we didn't really have many large carnivores.
We had wolves and made them into dogs.

I guess a larger one that would've made sense to use would be lions and yeah we didn't use them.

>>2353309
the big mega one is even freakier. something about their unconventional proportions freaks me out

>>2352070
>Considering these guys hunted in groups
Complete speculation, highly unlikely.

File: not dis shit.jpg (156KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1920x1080px

>>2351637
>Several scientists have pointed out that Allosauroidea and Tyrannosauroidea are generally indistinguishable though. So it is quite possible that Concavenator isn't proof of feathers evolving independently in allosauroids- rather that it's simply misclassified. This has been suggested for tyrannosauroids as well. It's quite possible that the mess we have regarding feathers isn't real, the confusion is arising because some animals have been classified incorrectly.

yeah no, tyrannosaurs have an evolutionary lineage that was separate and contemporary of allosaurs. just because megaraptora are aberrant and display a confusing mix of tyrannosaur/allosaur/ceratosaiur features does not mean the groups are interrelated there just a bizarre case of convergent evolution we haven't unraveled yet.

File: y-u-no-david-peters-by-themac-July-2012-tiny.jpg (11KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 350x263px

>>2351710

>>2351637
umm there's a more parsimonious explanation....feathers are just basal for theropods (or at least for Tetanurae, which is the clade containing carnosaurs [a name i prefer to allosauroids!] and coelurosaurs but excluding the ceratosaurs, which so far have not been found with preserved evidence of feathers.

>>2356313
>tyrannosaurs have an evolutionary lineage that was separate and contemporary of allosaurs

there is very little phylogenetic evidence of this.
>there just a bizarre case of convergent evolution we haven't unraveled yet
They're not the only ones. In case you haven't noticed, most tyrannosauroid characters are found in allosaurus.

convergent, derived characters can't be used to diagnose a taxon. Meaning there's no particular reason to think Tyrannosaurus is a tyrannosauroid. Most tyrannosauroid traits are convergent, and found in allosauroids.
>>2356733
>but excluding the ceratosaurs, which so far have not been found with preserved evidence of feathers.
there's no evidence for feathers in allosauroids or tyrannosaurids either.

>>2356745
>there's no evidence for feathers in allosauroids or tyrannosaurids either.
with the exception of Concavenator which is almost certainly misclassified. Because the same characters used to assign it to Carcharodontosauroidea are the exact same ones used to assign over 20 other animals to Tyrannosauroidea.

because those traits are found in both allosauroids and tyrannosauroids.

File: IMG_7696.jpg (153KB, 1716x981px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1716x981px

Here I present you the most accurate Tyrannosaurus I have seen in a video game

>>2356745
are you retarded

File: Quothe the T. rex, 'nevermore'..jpg (893KB, 4211x1845px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 4211x1845px

>>2356777
I don't dig the lips, but I do dig everything else

All you ignorant fags that don't know about my nigga yutyrannus huali

>>2356916
well too bad because that's the kind of lips they had

>>2356907
are you too lazy to look up the diagnostic traits of tyrannosauroids and then check to see how many are found in allosauroids?
>>2356921
the funny part is they can't change the name even when they realize it's not a tyrannosauroid.

File: GET BIT.jpg (367KB, 2000x1251px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 2000x1251px

>>2357002
ON what evidence my dude? Have we found any lip impression? Any places around the maxillary that could be used as anchors for any muscle that could retract the lips?

Because the way I see it, full on lips may be problematic for an animal with a carnosaurian dental setup. There's a reason we don't see lips in crocodilians and other animals with large, sharp, jutting teeth in a lengthy snout. Lips would be too easy to bite. The reason animals like you and me get away with it is because our teeth are relatively uniform. Bears get away with it for similar reasons, as well as having their lips set up much more aloof from the teeth at large. For a rex (or any other carnivorous dinosaur), lips would have to mean the upper teeth all make it uniformly into the lip, which is impossible It would constantly bite itself. Even if the teeth are uniform enough to fit inside a lower lip, that lower lip would have to be very, very big. It would need constant muscle control to ensure the animal didn't bite itself, and as I said earlier, we'll need to see skull where muscular anchors indicate such a lip structure.

I can imagine why so many insist on it though. Shrink-wrapping is a curse paleontology has tried to break itself from for the past ten years or more, but still, we shouldn't just assume things based solely on a desire to escape scientific ghosts of Christmas past.

Now of course, if you post any sources or even postulations with a solid basis, I'll be BTFO and gladly shut up.

>>2357016
>I'll be BTFO and gladly shut up.
>I'll argue and deny and eventually go away only to come back 10 minutes later pretending to be someone who agrees with me
ftfy

File: 1492185467069.jpg (108KB, 998x974px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 998x974px

>>2357025
Thank you for that baseless assumption, now will you please throw me a bone and give some counterpoints/evidence.

>>2357028
I'm not the guy you're arguing with.

I found your 'explanation' creative.
undoubtedly bullshit, but at least it's creative bullshit.

>>2357028
>give some counterpoints/evidence
Strangely enough that's not how it works.

you made a claim, do you have any evidence that it's true?
no?
very well.

File: Tyrannosaurs.jpg (160KB, 953x786px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 953x786px

>>2357033
>I found your 'explanation' creative.
>undoubtedly bullshit, but at least it's creative bullshit.


Well then please explain why you see it that way rather than just mudslinging, friendo. Otherwise, I can't be assed to take you seriously, neither can anyone else.

>>2357035
Paleontology has always been half speculation, seeing as how it literally is the study of animals long dead whom we cannot observe. What I'm asking for is if you believe they were lipped, why so? As far as evidence goes, the dye isn't cast well for either of us. There have been to lip impressions to my knowledge, which is why I asked if you knew of any such thing, as that would completely lay my postulation to rest. Now, seeing as there is no evidence for or against it (once again, only as far as I know), what we're engaging in here is a "war of ideas." if you'll indulge me: based on what we do have, we can deduce some things that cannot be observed. For example, look at the exothermic/endothermic debate. Do we have a living therapod whose mouth we can stick a thermometer in? No, but we can look at other parts of its morphology to determine whether or not the animal's lifestyle was more fitted to exothermy or endothermy.

Now, with that being said, All I ask of you is what makes you think therapods had lips. That's the whole premise. If neither of us have direct evidence (I reiterate, only as far as I know), we can at least deduce what really was there based on what little we have. If you have any ideas, let's hear them. I want to discuss, not argue. Discussion actually gets things done, and is much more enjoyable.

>>2357040
>Well then please explain why you see it that way rather than just mudslinging, friendo
1. you don't know if dinosaurs had maxillary muscle scars for lips, you wouldn't recognize them if they did.
2. You don't know if animals with uneven tooth rows can have lips, you haven't checked.
3. You haven't explained why biting your lips is reason to not have them.

so as usual you're just making shit up.

File: grizzly skull.jpg (155KB, 1018x785px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1018x785px

>>2357043
Well then let me rectify/clarify

>you don't know if dinosaurs had maxillary muscle scars for lips, you wouldn't recognize them if they did.
We can compare them to animals with similar/differing morphological situations. Take a look at this bear skull. Look along that "ridge" that runs along the fore edge of the cheekbone, above the infraorbital canal and to the maxillary. You can see where flesh hangs off there in a cheek. As for the lips, you can look at the nasal/premaxilla and compare what you see to animals who share similar traits, those being a single, open hole for the nose, indicating that flesh was there to provide the two inner canals with a respective entrance. See humans, cows, deer, etc, With the upper maxillary with a lip.In Thereapods, we see no room for too much flesh. The trend with a bear skull (and other animals) is that bone overhangs tooth so that flesh/muscle too can overhang. Look at therapod skull. Bone does not hang over the teeth, but it slopes downward to them, much like crocodilians. I don;t see much room or anchor for extra maxillary tissue.
>2. You don't know if animals with uneven tooth rows can have lips, you haven't checked.
I have. And so far, when i see teeth like a Tyrannosaurid's/Charcarodontosaurid's/whatever, I see no lips. If it's a lizard, the teeth are set farther away from the edge of the skull. Have a look at a Tegu skull. and compare it to a rex's. Compare those with a gator's. Teeth jut out of the gator's and the Rex's, but in the tegu, the teeth are set a little farther into the mouth. They don;t "Jut out" and tissue can hang over them easily.
>2. You don't know if animals with uneven tooth rows can have lips, you haven't checked.
That's a tricky one isn't it? We bite our one lips all the time and it hurts like hell. The difference between us and rex however, is that is he had lips, he'd be biting them ALL the time, rather than when he's eating dinner too fast. It all comes down to my two other points.

>>2357043
And by the way, what do you mean, "As usual?"

That Edgar Allan Poe filename was my first post in this thread.

Please don't tell me you're being obstinate because you're mistaking me for someone else.

>>2357054
>You can see where flesh hangs off there in a cheek.
it doesn't.
>a single, open hole for the nose
so animals with lips have a single nasal opening? What about fish? Single opening?
>we see no room for too much flesh
you've clearly never examined a theropod skull.
> bone overhangs tooth so that flesh/muscle too can overhang.
You mean like how it's NOT overhanging the canine teeth in that bear you posted? are you retarded?
>Look at therapod skull. Bone does not hang over the teeth, but it slopes downward to them, much like crocodilians.
again, you've clearly never held a "therapod" skull.
>tissue can hang over them easily.
what about the bottom lip, does it "hang over" the teeth too?
>It all comes down to my two other points.
bullshit you pull out of your ass isn't "points."

File: BarbfishSkullLabel.jpg (172KB, 800x459px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 800x459px

>>2357062
>it doesn't.
but it doe my man. Take a frontal cross section. Flesh is meant to hang off those like ice off a roof
>so animals with lips have a single nasal opening? What about fish? Single opening?
Obviously differing skull structure (see pic). We're obviously dealing with different animals with vastly different environments (water vs land). This is not taking into account cartilaginous structures, especially in cartilaginous fish such as sharks.
>you've clearly never examined a theropod skull.
Well, post one and show me a frontal cross section, Whip up something stupid in paint if you have to. From the nasals down the to maxillary, there is seen a n upside down "V" or "U" shape depending on what family we're looking at. Unless a ton of flesh if hanging off that slope, I don't see much room for lip.
>You mean like how it's NOT overhanging the canine teeth in that bear you posted? are you retarded?
Calm down and pay attention to what I said I said that basing on how the animal has muscle/flesh anchoring all around the teeth, one can assume there has to be a way the canines are covered. The big, nasal gap is suspicious. This is the part where I might not have been too clear, so forgive me for any confusion: look around the nasals, those shaded spots indicating depth, especially around the nasal and premaxillary. Something has to go in that big frontal nasal gap. is it a concave pit, or does cartilage fill this whole thing to give us a nose and therefore lips? Looking at how the animal's teeth are thus far protected by flesh, and the possible anchors points for more such flesh around the nasals, we can assume a cartilagenous nose and lips to go with them.

File: momma says.jpg (35KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x315px

>>2357056
>And by the way, what do you mean, "As usual?"
I mean it is usual for our dinosaur threads to be full of completely made up shit.

and it would indeed be an odd coincidence if this was your first time spouting bullshit here when it happens all the time.

what are the odds?

File: mama says.jpg (47KB, 500x276px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x276px

>>2357071
>Obviously differing skull structure (see pic).
like how theropod skulls differ from bears?
kek
>post one and show me a frontal cross section
it's my job to laugh at you, not teach you.
>Something has to go in that big frontal nasal gap
but there can't be any cartilaginous structure above the lips of dinosaurs?

I mean, pretending you're right and an overhang is necessary (which is of course bullshit). Who says your overhang can be made of cartilage in bears but not dinosaurs?

and you still haven't addressed the overhang on the bottom lip. again, are you literally retarded?

File: 1929 Heune, titan sauropods 1929.jpg (154KB, 1440x490px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1440x490px

>>2357015
dude, there are multiple tyrannosauroids with feathers. Dilong and Yutyrannus off the top of my head. If there's anything to be said about allosauroids it's that they probably basally had feathers too. Nobody fucking recovers a massively paraphyletic Tyrannosauroidea or a Tyrannosauroidea+Allosauroidea clade. The idea that tyrannosaurs are coelurosaurs is actually old, I believe von Huene published it in the 1920s. Trust me when I say that von Huene was a very prescient guy - this is a 1929 reconstruction of Titanosaurus he made. Pretty modern for its time.

File: xfbdfh.jpg (80KB, 433x323px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 433x323px

>>2357062
>>2357071
>again, you've clearly never held a "therapod" skull.
Compare once more the Tegu and the rex. Once again I was not clear. In the therapod, you see root far more easily. The teeth grow from a root closer to the outside of the animal's skull. True there is bony overhang on both, but the Tegu's teeth, the "lumps" caused by the canals are not nearly as prominent. Bottom line is, a large therapod's teeth grew closer to the outer surface of the skull. Note the "grooves" on the maxillary that you don't see in the tegu.
>what about the bottom lip, does it "hang over" the teeth too?
No, as the bottom teeth are covered by the top, and there would have been at least some tissue. Keep in mind, I never said we're looking at the monsters from Jackson's King Kong: it wasn't all crocodilian (I apologize for not clarifying earlier), and there was tissue above the teeth. it just couldn't have fully covered them without being a nuisance to the animal.
>bullshit you pull out of your ass isn't "points."
Thank you for demonstrating both civility and reading comprehension all at once.
>I mean it is usual for our dinosaur threads to be full of completely made up shit.and it would indeed be an odd coincidence if this was your first time spouting bullshit here when it happens all the time.what are the odds?
Aren't you a ray of sunshine then

>it's my job to laugh at you, not teach you.

Well now, you've fully demonstrated an utter lack of any desire to discuss anything so much as you just wanna fling shit, dude. From what I've been reading, it seems you don't even want to host discussion so much as you want to vent your frustration with others on some dude who wanted to talk about an idea. You've shown no capacity for anything but near textbook shit flinging and cool kid attitude, both of which are no way to share and discuss knowledge and ideas. At this point, talking to you would tell me more about who pissed in your coffee more than your paleontological insight. Deuces

>>2357085
>Nobody fucking recovers a massively paraphyletic Tyrannosauroidea or a Tyrannosauroidea+Allosauroidea clade.
Only because they ignore the tyrannosauroid traits in allosauroidea.

what part of this aren't you getting?

it's like if they said that tyrannosauroids are diagnosed by tails and teeth and then pretended allosauroids don't have them.

Rauhut got his ass handed to him for this sloppy shit, and he's not the only one doing it.

>>2357091
still has nothing to do with the feather issue. putting tyrannosaurids (or -oids) outside of Coelurosauria sans T.rex (Coelurosauria sensu stricto, in other words) does not put tyrannosaurids 'off the hook' on the feather issue. I don't study dinosaurs so I don't necessarily know, but would the 'allosauroid features' you see in tyrannosaurs perhaps be *cough* plesiomorphies?

>>2357088
>it seems you don't even want to host discussion so much as you want to vent your frustration with others on some dude who wanted to talk about an idea.
You asked why your bullshit doesn't work.
I explained.

so you then went off on another couple other bullshit tangents which were just as false and twice as funny as the first.

that's on you, not me.

again, your ideas are amusing, but wrong. I've explained why. If you want me to list them again I can, but you don't seem intelligent enough to understand the criticism.

and really if you were smart enough to understand where you went wrong, you wouldn't have done it in the first place, right?