How long can we have a nice Dinosaur/Paleoart thread until it

>>2354849
>war place between feather and scale nuts
never been to a dino thread, what do you mean?

>>2354854
Basically every dinosaur thread starts with some nice art and ends up as a discussion wether or not T. rex had feathers and how many dinosaurs actually had skin

>>2354855
That's ridiculous, everybody knows they had scales.

>>2354857
Here we go again

>>2354849
i had one or two good ones that I started. The key is to keep posting art, anon. Otherwise the shitposting will take over.

>>2354857
wrong, theropods had feathers. not the same feathers as birds have because they weren't originally evolved for flight

>>2354867
not ALL theropods either, and the ones with feathers had scales AND feathers

>>2354865
Thanks for the advice

>>2354849
>until it becomes a war place between feather and scale nuts?
ironically you started the war with that very line

File: 002-2-700x525.jpg (63KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x525px

>>2354869
the problem with these threads (and, well, society) is that there are so few actual palaeontologists in the world that the likelihood of one actually posting here and putting these rubes in their place is minuscule (but not unheard of). so just drown them out with art, like this

File: dinosex3.gif (315KB, 595x831px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 595x831px

post horny dinos

>>2354873
yes anti-featherfags need to learn their lesson from an actual dinosaurologist

>>2354876
preach it brother, i consider myself qualified to put them in my place but I'm not an 'accredited expert' so there's always the whole "well you don't have a PhD so you're WRONG" canard waiting to get thrown at me

File: mokele1.jpg (47KB, 400x296px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x296px

So far, I genuinely believe the Mokele-Mbembe is real. Has anything debunked it's existence yet?

>>2354880
http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/06/22/a-living-dinosaur-in-the-congo/
http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/06/29/a-living-dinosaur-in-the-congo-part-2/
yes, multiple times

>>2354880
I sure it's just an unclassified species of semi aquatic giraffe.

>>2354895
not even, it's just a myth. Whatever it is, it exists only in the minds of men.

>>2354900
dude...what if like this universe only exists in our minds *takes a bong hit while farting*

I thought it was only theropods that had feathers? Did some evidence surface that sauropods and ceratopids have them?

>>2354849
The scale nuts is sometimes called /aq/fag as he seems to ruin every /aq/ he can.
He also doesn't know how avereges work and, irocally, tells people they suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect when he is the one that has it.
I think he is also the person who thinks bugguy chases him anonymously.
If you see him posting, just ignore it.

File: The Last Allosaur.png (251KB, 396x566px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 396x566px

>>2354927
Cue him showing up to snidely talk to you about statistics and call anyone who disagrees with him hapless fools.

(I'm the guy he keeps referring to as bugguy, btw.)

>>2354868
>the ones with feathers had scales AND feathers
most of them didn't.

>>2354935
Good job proving OP right.

>>2354932
>(I'm the guy he keeps referring to as bugguy, btw.)
see, I told you it's just one person.

>>2354920
Your average poster doesnt care about anything that is not a theropod

>>2354938
OP very literally asked for it.

>>2354940
Ever since I was a little kid, I was always enamored by triceratops though.

Recently, I read some articles saying it had quills actually, which is interesting.

>>2354935

Do alligators and monitor lizards have feathers? I bet they fucking do because the earth is flat and 6017 years old

File: Triceratops Witton.jpg (399KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1200x750px

>>2354940
That's not true. If we had been around at the same time, I think we would see Triceratops as one of the most mighty and noble creatures to ever live.

I also find sauropods and the gigantic sizes they obtained intriguing.

>>2354947
my one gripe at this pic is that it looks too darn cold & alpine, kind of the opposite of Maastrichtian Montana

>>2354948
Although they were primarily centered in the low Deltas like Hell Creek and Lance Creek, Triceratops extended pretty far up into Canada and I would guess they occupied a variety of habitats.

>>2354920
some ornithischians (a heterodontosaurid, _Psittacosaurus_, a basal ornithopod) have been found with integumentary structures which *might* be homologous with theropod feathers (which are proper feathers). as far as i know, the jury is out on the relationship of the protofeathers of ornithischians to those of theropods, but they undoubtedly were used for thermoregulation in some taxa, and in Psittacosaurus probably were more for display.

>>2354949
that part of Canada would have been fairly low-lying at the time as well, but I will concede that it's not out of the question that ceratopsids might have utilized highland habitats

File: rjpalmer_dakotaraptor_conceptart_001_by_arvalis-d9ev6iw-1024x355.jpg (58KB, 1024x355px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1024x355px

>>2354946
That's why feathered dinosaurs aren't drawn with random patches of scales.

over 90% of them were covered entirely in feathers. If you wanted to pretend a feathered dinosaur had scales in places other than its feet you'd need some evidence.

>>2354953
I bet your mother has scales. Ones that shes broken from being so fat

>>2354958
yo mamma so old she think yo mamma jokes still funny

>>2354932
>(I'm the guy he keeps referring to as bugguy, btw.)
Then stop responding to him, and i've seen him calling 2 different posters bugguy.
Do you enjoy reading the same bullshit over and over again like in >>2354953?
The guy is the offspring of a parrot and a broken record player.

>>2354969
>i've seen him calling 2 different posters bugguy.
Nope, they were both me. I don't know how he spots me in every thread but he does.

>>2354969
I'm not, he already responded to me so I didn't respond back. I haven't posted a single thing in this thread about feathers because, like you said, I'm sick of the broken record player. Hopefully if we just ignore him, /aq/ fag will go away/off himself.

>>2354975
I enjoy making you look stupid and then watching you get all angry about it.

I don't need your response to do this.
All I need is you to say stupid things. Which happens a lot. Go figure.

>>2354972
At least you aren't rat man. Yeah I'm still here.

>>2354978
>At least you aren't rat man.
He's not bugguy either, bugguy was just a tripfag that took the blame for any and all faggotry on /an/

He eventually got chased off for it, but if it wasn't his faggotry in the first place, who should've gotten chased off?

>>2354991
I know nothing about the subject because I don't fanboy anonymous posters on the slowest board on the dumbest forum on the internet.

I mean just lay off it. Why would your life's work include an ability to recognize speech patterns when everyone else can do it too?

>>2354998
Not him but we're nowhere near the slowest board
Half the boards on 4chan are actually slower than /an/

File: trex.gif (154KB, 534x375px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 534x375px

Possible rex family behavior. What if one parent stood guard of the newer offspring while another with an adolescent bring back home the bacon?

>>2355017
I think like in the case with alot of modern predators, it varied by case to case with alot of them living solitary and some living in family groups.

>>2354875
>.gif
aw man I thought they were gonna start moving

>>2355017
would only work if they had feathers

File: 18loothoreftqjpg.jpg (58KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x450px

>>2355025
lol dont worry there's more than enough pics like this to satisfy u

>>2354998
>Why would your life's work include an ability to recognize speech patterns when everyone else can do it too?
It doesn't. I just spend way too much time reading what people write here. And I have a near-perfect memory for things I've read.

the only thing I haven't figured out yet is if my bugguy featherfag is also the rabid anti-featherkin.

It's possible both sides of that argument are the same dude. They've both been posting the same stuff for years. But then so have I.

File: euparkeriacapensis.jpg (339KB, 1280x804px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1280x804px

let's give Euparkeria some love

File: Jurassic Park T-Rex Wallpaper 2.jpg (475KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1920x1200px

T-Rex didn't have feathers.
I can accept that Raptors had proto-feathers but if you think a giant animal like T-Rex was covered in feathers you're retarded.

File: T bataar digital carbon dust labeled.jpg (254KB, 1600x1413px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1600x1413px

>>2355114
>if you think a giant animal like T-Rex was covered in feathers you're retarded.
I mean clearly you're much smarter than the average theropod paleontologist.

So, given your extensive knowledge of theropod anatomy and physiology, would you say that features such as the jugal fenestra, maxillary fenestra, and lacrimal fossa are really diagnostic of tyrannosauroids when they're all found in allosauroids as well?

what do you make of that, oh educated one? Are these simply derived characters? Or are tyrannosauroids and allosauroids the same thing? Or do we just pretend this situation doesn't exist?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response and not-at-all-retarded insights.

>>2355120
drag him

>>2355114
why is it that anti-feather guys seem to jack off to Jurassic Park? it's just a movie, get over it.

File: allosaurskull_dsc_9707.jpg (43KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x450px

>>2355125
I agree with him about the feathers.
I just don't think the metabolic argument is sound and I'm sure as hell not going to call a bunch of PhD dinosaur paleontologists retarded.

/an/ is busy arguing to the lowest common denominator while scientists are having arguments most here can't even begin to comprehend.

Hell, I think my point about over 90% of animals being more than 90% covered with one thing was too much for /an/ to grasp,
and this is something any paleontologist knows as fact.

>>2355141
How many tyrannosauroid characters does this skull have?

I can count 4 without even checking a diagnosis. Easily enough to classify it as a tyrannosauroid.

>>2355141
How many tyrannosaurid characters?
I again count 4, which is more than enough to classify it as a tyrannosaur.

File: b2.jpg (442KB, 1761x1174px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1761x1174px

>>2355141
>>2355142
>>2355143
Make that 5, I forgot the abrupt angle of the premaxillae.

this is one more cranial feature than was used to assign Proceratosaurus to Tyrannosauroidea and Tyrannosauridae.

It's also more cranial features than were used to assign Yutyrannus and Dilong and most other supposed tyrannosauroids.

Is Allosaurus a tyrannosasaur? Inquiring minds want to know. Answer this question and you'll see why Tyrannosaurus probably lacked feathers.

>>2355114
why would the size make a difference?

>>2355147
he's referring to the square-cube law.

Animals have less surface area to mass as they become larger. Since heat is lost primary through the surface this makes it harder for large animals to cool off. Overheating means death.

Extremely large mammals don't have fur, or if they do it's so thin you can't see it most of the time. If Tyrannosaurus was warm-blooded and lived in even a moderately warm climate, having feathers would kill it from overheating.

unless the feathers were very thin and spread out.

But in reality Tyrannosaurus lived in lots of climates that ranged from temperate forest to tropical desert. Cooling off may not have been a problem for it, even if it had feathers.

File: siats.jpg (30KB, 500x663px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x663px

>>2355147
He's also ignoring the surface area represented by the pulmonary epithelia.

Tyrannosaurus had probably over 100 times more interior lung surface than mammals. Huge freakin lungs that invaded its skeleton and took up much of its body. Avian lungs.

The thing about avian lungs is they're huge evaporative surfaces, meaning every breath cools the animal. This is one reason birds don't overheat easily, even though they have feathers. Mammals would quickly become dehydrated using their lungs as evaporative coolers like this. Dinosaurs had less of a problem because strictly speaking they didn't urinate. Also their skin was protected from moisture loss by scales or feathers.

File: lythronaxtoo.jpg (60KB, 670x440px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 670x440px

>>2355152
>>2355147
On top of the question of the pulmonary epithelia in an avian non-septate lung, there's the question of nasal turbinates.

Nasal turbinates are spirals of bone found in the noses of mammals and birds. These act to specifically increase the surface area of the nasal epithelium to airflow. This exposure works to regulate body temperature by using evaporation to cool warm air and condensation to retain moisture in ectothermic animals.

So if we wanted to know if Tyrannosaurus was using nasal turbinates as a strategy to cool its body thus compensating for having feathers during warm periods, we'd just need to know one thing:
the distance between the external nares and the choanae.

Of course nobody on /an/ knows this measure or even the words I'm using, so it's utterly meaningless to even bring it up here. No less significant for /an/'s lack of understanding though....

>>2355158
>ectothermic
endo of course

>>2354849
Honestly some of the people that post in these threads, maybe only one or two depending on how addicted they are to 4chan, are abject fucking psychos.

File: wp.jpg (483KB, 2076x1080px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 2076x1080px

>>2355120
>>2355141
>>2355142
>>2355143
>>2355145
>>2355150
>>2355152
>>2355158
Having completed my lecture series on the taxonomy, anatomy and physiology of tyrannosaurids I will now conclude with a picture.

at least /an/ can understand a picture. I imagine all of you only read books with pictures.

File: albert.jpg (107KB, 900x554px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 900x554px

>>2355166
>some of the people that post in these threads... are abject fucking psychos.
Yet OP continues to post the same thread
week after week,
month after month,
year after year.

it's almost like he enjoys it.

>>2355167
If you are so fucking smart, then why the fuck are you here?
You've said yourself several times over that "we" are just so damn dumb and beneath you, than why the fuck are you here, you pretentious ass bag?

File: Lexovisaurus_vs_Allosaurus_by_dustdevil.jpg (70KB, 1200x688px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1200x688px

>>2355172
>You've said yourself several times over that "we" are just so damn dumb and beneath you, than why the fuck are you here, you pretentious ass bag?
Imagine for a moment you're a pretentious ass bag with nobody to condescend to. Where would you go?

I'm here because I find the level of conversation amusing. I make you mad, you make me laugh. At least one of us gets what he wants.

and if you pay attention you get free lessons on nasal turbinates, pulmonary epithelia, strategies for homeostasis, numerous laws of evolution, and etc.

>>2355173
>so fucking smart, yet doesn't understand a rhetorical question
I didn't need anymore of your bullshit faggot.
I already know why you are here. It's because you're just as fucking stupid as we are, you just can't accept it. You are no different than anyone else here,just too full of yourself to realize it.

File: DINOSAURI_by_AIRt.jpg (96KB, 1167x875px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1167x875px

>>2355175
>It's because you're just as fucking stupid as we are, you just can't accept it.
I'm dying to find someone that can understand or even answer these questions:
>>2355120

I understand you can't. And you'd like to think you're just as smart and educated for not understanding the question as I am for asking it.

sadly it doesn't work that way.

>>2354958
Kek

>>2354998
This is not the slowest board. I'm from /out/ and conversations there happen at the rate of one reply a day.

>>2354935
actually, most of them DO.
We've got a sample size of about 10,000 theropod species that have both scales and feathers.

Granted, those scales kinda evolved /from/ feathers...

>>2355175
>Lists off well-known facts about archosaurian anatomy
>I didn't need anymore of your bullshit
drink some water, kid.

>>2354953
here goes le 90%

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

307KB, 1024x1929px

>>2354875
Some paleontologists believed that for many dinos, in order to get around their rigid tails, may have possessed extraordinarily long penes. After seeing a tortoise penis, I can say that is entirely plausible.

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

3MB, 8252x2497px

>>2355017
I believe the idea accepted amongst the scientific community is that they roamed in gangs. They co-operated with one another for only as long as it was convenient, then it would devolve into a contest with the dominant examples left with the spoils. These gangs might not have been long-lived and it is likely that they also hunted/scavenged alone.

I like to imagine that dinosaurs were spooky skeletons

>>2355363
it's plausible and desirable

File: tyrannosaurus_rex_2016_by_arvalis-da9vcdk.jpg (115KB, 1378x580px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1378x580px

>>2354953
it's funny because the artist you just posted also depicts trex as having feathers

>>2355114
Ostriches don't have feathers. I can accept that pigeons have feathers but if you think an animal as large as an ostrich is covered in feathers you're an idiot.

File: 84287170.jpg (95KB, 900x888px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 900x888px

>>2355426
>ostriches don't have feathers

>>2355078
>Die
>Your skeleton is fossilized
>Paleontologists misgender you and have you getting butfucked by some random guy for all eternity

>>2355474
C'mon man. Read the post they quoted.

File: devilface.jpg (44KB, 500x417px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x417px

>>2355318
>well-known facts about archosaurian anatomy
>never mentioned by anyone on /an/ in the last 5 years of arguing rex feathers.
apparently not that well known if none of you faggots ever thought to bring them up.
>>2355419
The point I'm trying to make isn't that nobody thinks rex had feathers.

it's that lots of people think it had feathers based on evidence that wouldn't lead them to that conclusion in any other dinosaur.

Tyrannosaurus is being treated as a special case where the normal rules don't apply.
>>2355426
Great analogy!
Ostriches have lost over half of their feathers. Tyrannosaurus is about 100 times larger, how many feathers would it lose?
>>2355478
kek 10/10

File: 1475388753708.jpg (144KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 500x338px

>>2355559
>Tyrannosaurus is being treated as a special case where the normal rules don't apply.

Are you sure? I admit i'm just an amateur, but from all I've read, it's based on other tyrannosaurids having feathers, and feather-like structures being found in enough families to up the probabilities they appeared early in the dino evolution, and such characteristics don't tend to disappear entirely (elephants and rhinos still have hair, for example). Also, feathers radiate heat in ways hair doesn't, so size isn't everything. So... it's likely it had at least some.

>>2355634
btw, when I said "amateur", I actually meant "just a dude that's interested but is an total pleb moron like the ones knowledgeable anon up there mentioned". I don't have strong feelings one way or another, since I don't publish my own papers or work in the field.

>>2355634
>it's based on other tyrannosaurids having feathers
TyrannosaurOIDS, not IDS. No tyrannosaurids are known to have feathers.

Your understanding is correct. They're using phylogenetic bracketing to argue for feathers even though all we've found are scales.

By this same reasoning ALL dinosaurs descended from feathered ancestors so ALL dinosaurs should have feathers. (Kulindadromeus).

however this isn't inferred. We assume when we find stegosaur scales that it lacked feathers. Or sauropod scales. Or hadrosaur scales. Or ankylosaur scales. Even though these animals presumably had feathered ancestors.

So the rules are being broken specifically for Tyrannosaurus. Having feathered ancestors doesn't overrule finding scaled skin in any dinosaur except T. rex.

File: t_rex_vs_triceratops_by_swordlord3d-d9bd8h3.jpg (60KB, 679x350px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 679x350px

>>2355642
I've read the argument being used for sauropods, hadrosaurs, etc aswell. That there's a possibility (key word, possibility) they also had integument other than scales that are just not apparent in the current fossil record.

I do think paleoart should explore display structures and such that are just not fossilized, so we'll never see them/know how they really looked. Feathers do tend to show up, though.

Is there any consensus yet about that Triceratops soft tissue showing possible knobs? I need to find a good page for paleo science news, I guess.

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

195KB, 792x612px

>>2355426

>>2355648
>I've read the argument being used for sauropods, hadrosaurs, etc aswell.
yes.

the reason it failed with these animals is because scientists in general understand that fossils overrule bracketing, In fact if fossils don't agree with your brackets it's very likely your brackets are wrong.

this rule is being ignored in tyrannosauroids. Because nobody likes to admit their brackets may be wrong.

I haven't read any recent news on the T. horridus quills.

File: tsintaosaurus_by_ntamura-d6zhtsj.jpg (56KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x600px

>>2354873
das an old Tsintaosaurus

>>2354895
no obviously its a massive piscivorous Pangolin

File: eotriceratops_xerinsularis_by_kana_hebi-daxdrc2.jpg (99KB, 1280x322px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1280x322px

>>2355653
that meme went outta style the "quill nubs" where probably just bumpy scales but it wouldn't surprise me if they had large "quill" structures

File: bambi.jpg (91KB, 960x757px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 960x757px

>>2355669
neither one should surprise anyone.
the only question we have left is if ceratopsian quills and others are homologous to theropod feathers. And then to pterosaur pycnofibres. And then to embryonic alligator scales.

>>2354946
>Do alligators and monitor lizards have feathers?

Apparently their scutes may be their "feathers"

>Pterosaur "hair" was so obviously distinct from mammalian fur and other animal integuments, it required a new, separate name. The term "pycnofiber", meaning "dense filament", was first coined in a paper on the soft tissue impressions of Jeholopterus by palaeontologist Alexander W.A. Kellner and colleagues in 2009.[18] Research into the genetic code of American alligator embryos could suggest that pycnofibres, crocodile scutes and avian feathers are developmentally homologous, based on the construction of their beta-keratin.[37]

this is my first time on /AN/ I just want you guys to know you have not disappointed me. This was a time in my life where the hype about one of these threads actually lived no exceeded my expectations. Thank you so much
Now I am off to /pol/ to talk about how much I hate the jews.

>>2355704
I bet those nasty jews think tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers

any real vertebrate paleontologists on right now
i need to ask a question about somethin.......

>>2355660
>>2354873
Was that ever really reconstructed with a dick?

>>2355737
feathers, scales, they're going in the ovens regardless

>>2355760
I'm a paleo student, I might be able to answer, depends on the question.

>>2355806
what's the state of our knowledge on ornithischian "cheeks". Did they have them or not?

>>2355814
Witmer's challenge of the ceratopsian cheeks has never really moved passed just a published abstract. And even then, it was just focused on a single species, Leptoceratops. Iguanodontians and hadrosaurs have quite a margin of space in between their teeth and there beaks, which certainly suggests that cheeks were present. Meanwhile, the TetZoo article I read imples that despite the challenge, the scientific community isn't really buying it.

>>2355826
Yeah, I don't understand where the anti-cheek argument comes from. Mammals had to evolve them on their own, with the facial muscles; why can't ornithischians have also evolved cheeks? Crocodiles and lizards and birds (usually invoked when comparing dinos to living animals) all process food differently than ornithischians did. Is it possible that the 'cheeks' were not muscular, but still present?

File: galli.png (177KB, 880x576px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 880x576px

>>2355760
>any real vertebrate paleontologists on right now
kek
>>2355836
>I don't understand where the anti-cheek argument comes from

Ok, quick rundown. In animals with muscular cheeks the cheek muscle (buccinators) is innervated by the buccal branch of the facial nerve (Cranial nerve VII).
The facial nerve takes a long and circuitous route from the brain to the face. It generally exits the braincase in most vertebrates near the base of the stapes.

Now here's where it gets technical- in animals with muscular cheeks the external branches of the facial nerve including the parts that move the cheeks and/or lips exit the interior of the face via the stylomastoid foramen. In mammals the stylomastoid foramen is located in the temporal bone, an arrangement that is common though not necessarily universal in other animals.

Now we know about how big a stylomastoid foramen needs to be to allow nerves for the facial muscles to exist, and we know that extant animals that lack muscular cheeks or lips have very small stylomastoid foramina or are sometimes missing it entirely.

so we take this info and look for equivalent canals and foramina for facial nerves in extinct dinosaurs. Many scientists find them to be tiny or missing entirely. This is strong indication they didn't have muscular cheeks, lips, trunks, eyebrows, whatever. Now we know that dinosaurs did in fact have a facial nerve, because it serves several purposes in taste, hearing, and swallowing. But it doesn't appear they had advanced facial muscles like we have.

this does not rule out non-muscular cheeks. Nor does it absolutely rule out muscular cheeks or lips. It just argues against them.

File: 1200.jpg (97KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1200x675px

:3

First girl best girl

File: feeding tha burds.jpg (60KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 720x479px

>>2355836
>>2355973
all that aside I personally think most ornithischians had cheeks. They may not have been muscular.

my thinking is a number of them evolved complex batteries of teeth for chewing. Chewing doesn't really work without cheeks. That's all. No anatomical basis for the assumption. Just that they had teeth for chewing and if you try to chew without cheeks most of your food lands on the ground.

>>2354867
And is there a way to know which color their feathers could have?

File: Ornithoscelida1.png (21KB, 500x289px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x289px

Where my ornithoscelidaebros at?

>>2355977
Yeah, this is my position too. It's possible that the fleshy, non-muscular cheek could be just an extension of the rictus (maybe, I'm not an anatomist) or something. Like>>2355973
said - it's possible there could be a novel muscular structure. Perhaps fossils with preserved soft tissue could inform us? Do the hadrosaurid mummies preserve any sign of the 'cheeks'?

>>2356052

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQmCWvfB6hs

>>2355080
I like this image.
This is a nice fucking image.

File: hadromummy.jpg (80KB, 720x512px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 720x512px

>>2356175
>Do the hadrosaurid mummies preserve any sign of the 'cheeks'?
Not that I know of. I've only ever seen one of them though.

File: Baby-dinosaurs-cop_2117742b.jpg (134KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 620x388px

>>2356347
glad you like it.

File: 1491281740376.jpg (127KB, 640x321px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 640x321px

>>2355973
I know it's a stupid question but when people are talking about cheeks or no cheeks, lips or no lips, how does that translate exactly to paleoart. By that I mean... Are JP-like dinos portrayed with lips? Cheeks are a bit more obvious, but I kinda struggle to identify lips and such in paleoart. Or is anything that's not a crocodillian face considered lips?

I just have no good frame of reference. Is pic-related lips? Cheeks?

I feel dumb but I wanna learn...

File: clevergirl.jpg (124KB, 500x672px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 500x672px

>>2356429
both animals are depicted with cheeks, but not with lips.

When talking lips and the stylomastoid foramen we're talking muscular protuberances like your lips that can be used to grab things.

More recently lips have been discussed as fleshy flaps without muscle that likely covered the teeth of theropods keeping them moist.

File: gorgosauruslips01_by_olofmoleman-d8vg3jl.jpg (89KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1000x500px

>>2356429
this is what's meant when discussing non-muscular lips.

just flaps of face that cover the teeth. Like monitor lizard "lips." Not actual lips.

>>2356434
>>2356435
the authors of the Daspletosaurus horneri paper say that the aforementioned species didn't have 'lizard lips' - it would look more like the gorgosaurus on the left (teeth visible when jaws closed)

>>2356475
>>2356434
I see.

>>2356435

The left one still seems to have "lips" to me, just smaller/don't cover the teeth entirely. Like a JP T.Rex.

When I imagined no-lips I assumed something like pic related. The paper you mentioned.

>>2356475
>the authors of the Daspletosaurus horneri paper say that the aforementioned species didn't have 'lizard lips'
They argue that because of the maxillary rugosity they had scales over the teeth instead of lips.

this is a moot point. Almost all theropods have rugose ventral margins of the maxillae, and when we say lips we're talking about any covering of the teeth. Scales are analogous to lips if they cover the teeth.

semantics is all. By their definition no theropods had lips. By the earlier definition they're responding to all of them did. Including Daspletosaurus.

either way their interpretation from analogy is open to argument. The maxillary rugosity may have served other purposes, and crocodiles lack lips because they don't have any trouble keeping their teeth wet living in water.

>>2356659
yeah, and some ppl have pointed out that there are other animals (terrestrial) that have exposed teeth that obviously don't need to stay wet. see Jaime Headden's blog post: https://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/making-lip-of-it/
it's pretty unlikely the teeth would be covered up by 'lips' in at least certain theropods - the Dilophosaurus pic is pretty damning

File: !B2EhUrgB2k~$(KGrHqJ,!jIE)rRRUegeBMg+fJn9iw~~_3.jpg (15KB, 232x227px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 232x227px

>>2356739
I wasn't taking a side. I agree some animals with enameled teeth have lips that don't cover them.

my cat is an obvious example. His fangs stick out all the time.

Also there's the problem of theropods constantly replacing teeth. So damage from drying may not have been a problem.

let the reader use their own judgment.

Why can't we talk about Harambe?

>>2356747
yeah i was thinking certain deer, pigs, etc. which have large, visible canine tusks. Hell, elephants. I personally don't care so much about the theropod "lip" controversy. But I do 'care' more about the question of whether ornithischians had cheeks or not. I think they did. Many think they didn't. And it seems more relevant to functional morphology, in my opinion, to discuss ornithischian facial anatomy. I don't see a reason to assume any difference in the behavior of theropods if their teeth were visible when the mouth was shut or not.

>>2357131
>yeah i was thinking certain deer, pigs, etc. which have large, visible canine tusks. Hell, elephants.
Those prove the authors' point because they're only partly enameled or lack enamel entirely.

>>2357165
Ok. I lean towards the superficial 'lips' anyways, at least in most of the theropods. I draw them that way, at least.