did dinosaurs have feathers?

>>2413509
yes

next question

>>2413510
can you proof this, because when i was growing up we were always taught they had scales or some shit.

File: muscle stimulation.jpg (80KB, 580x387px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 580x387px

>>2413509
>totally not bate this time you guise I swear on me mum!

some did some didn't

>>2413515
I am just looking for some honest answers, my little cousin is all about dinosaurs and wont stop talking about how they had feathers! Im like no way, how would they clean themselves, wouldn't feathers be more susceptible to bugs and insects
>>2413583
why tho?

>>2413509
Considering a chicken is the closest thing to a T-Rex...; Yes.

>>2413590
they shared a common ancestor at some point millions of years ago, as did we with fish at one point if you believe in evolution, and we dont have scales.

>>2413598
>we dont have scales.
hair is a type of scale.

>>2413628
so i guess all reptiles have hair by your definition then?

>>2413641
>hair is a type of scale so all scales are hairs
>grape is a type of fruit so all fruits are grapes
>Toyota is a type of car so all cars are Toyotas
>diamond is a type of rock so all rocks are diamonds

are you a bot or just a really stupid person?

>>2413648
hair is not a type of scale you autist

>>2413652
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18419.short

>>2413628
>>2413648
>>2413666
>hair is a type of scale
>diamond is a rock
>that link as proof
Are you retarded?

>>2413666
but hair ISNT a type of scale.

I thought this was a smart board?

>>2413666
>>2413692
The devil you say

File: frankie.jpg (122KB, 605x609px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 605x609px

>>2413707
(checks the trips nods his in begrudging agreement)

>>2413509
There is a recent discovery of a small feathered lizard type in amber. I cant be arsed to find a link but yes.

File: amber.jpg (117KB, 780x438px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 780x438px

>>2413718
It was just it's tail, actually. But at some point recently there was a really nice imprint of a Russian dino absolutely covered in feathers found. Not to mention all the imprints they've been finding lately.

Some dinosaurs had feathering, some didn't. That's the long and short of it. And if you think it's dumb because they aren't the dinosaurs you grew up with, you're an idiot. I think the general consensus is that Therapods likely all had feathers and that other species may have, but it isn't clear. They found really good remains of a Ceratopsian with feathering recently, but Sauropods likely didn't have them. There was also that really well preserved Nodosaur that people were clamoring over because it didn't appear to have any feathering of any kind.

File: babboon.jpg (38KB, 500x351px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x351px

>>2413733
See, a lot of our misunderstandings about Dinosaurs stem from the concept of shoddy paleoart. People, not always scientists even, draw dinosaurs based on their skeletons or create these sort of replicas based on bones they find and very little else.

It used to be very typical for paleoartists to shrink wrap bones. Literally, look at the bones and draw those, then draw skin on them without thought given to muscle or otherwise. That's why so many early illustrations of Dinosaurs were tail draggers and these big awful upright monsters that look nothing like what life has taught us animals look like. T-rex could never stand upright, by the way. The weight would kill it, he slouched way the fuck forward. A lot of the shrink wrapped dinos then gave way to weird ways of thinking about how they existed and what their lives were like. Shit like aquatic sauropods and scales and all this other shit. The bones were barely studied for little more than form when it came to classical paleoart. And the biggest issue is that people continue to try and support these monstrosities as though they're realistic or correct, because those are the dinosaurs they remember. Never giving thought to where these ideas of what they looked like came from.

Pic related, it's a paleoart styled shrink wrapped Baboon. There are a few artist who started doing a ton of these to bring attention to people about how fucked our idea of what dinosaurs looked like is.

File: shoebill.jpg (591KB, 1000x577px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1000x577px

>>2413736
Here's a shoe bill and a stork. Dinosaurs may have actually been exceedingly varied based on close inspection of fossilized remains. Taking animal biology into question and comparing modern animals to fossils we're better to understand how different our visions of dinosaurs likely were. And finding imprints and well preserved specimens has been doing nothing but changing our understanding of dinosaur structures and lives for the better. Yes, it means we lose the old dinosaurs, but they never existed as we knew them anyway. There's a very good chance your favorite dinosaur either looks completely different now or was rolled into another species because further research of remains uncovered that it was never a real species or that some other species was never real but was always whatever your favorite was. Taurosaurus and Triceratops are a great example. Trice turned out to never exist. It was a ase of mistaken identity. All Trice were just baby Tauro all along. They decided to keep Triceratops as the proper name in place of Taurosaurus however, as most people have no idea what a Tauro is. Brontosaurus is the more classical version, though. Where it turned out to be a hodgepodge of different dino parts all slapped together.

File: swans.jpg (194KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 600x463px

>>2413743
one more shrink wrapped animal. This is a swan.

>>2413743
well thank you for your well thought out and well written reply. I really appreciate a discussion that doesnt resort into both parties calling each others retards. So I have to ask because you mentioned it, what does the "new" T-rex look like, I think he was like everybody's fav as a kid

>>2413743
>>2413744
Wings allow such bizarre skeletons.

>>2413736
Dinos could very well have looked like pic related.

We don't know and never will. You are making alot of hot assumptions.

>>2413736
>that guy who brings up skinwrapping n every thread.

File: 1495100577815.png (1MB, 825x873px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 825x873px

>>2413744
Also, there's likely reason to believe sauropods had trunks and feathered bird-like dinos can be just as terrifying as mummy lizard dinos.

After a certain point, I just for real can't figure out why people want to cling to old fashioned dinosaurs when they're so inaccurate. It's a building problem within and outside the scientific community and it's ridiculous.

Thank god dinosaur paleontology is not useful or important

File: fluffytrex.jpg (555KB, 2684x1200px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 2684x1200px

>>2413748
Forgive the over the top feathering. Though it's very likely the trex had feathers. The posture 9or further) is what most modern paleoartists and scientists have been trying to correct it as over the older more upright depictions. It slumped way further forward than most people depict it as slumping forward. Like, imagine a real thick tail for balance and then an animal who's body is basically parallel with the ground. There's also theories upon theories with evidence involved pushing toward the idea that T-rex was possibly a scavenger and not a predator at all. If he was a predatory he was an ambush predator who jumped out of forest lines or otherwise to attack other startled dinosaurs, because he likely couldn't run much at all.

>>2413749
I know, it's fucking amazing, right?

>>2413750
That argument is like given up. If we assume you're right and we don't know and never will, than clearly your vision of dinosaurs is just as invalid as mine. That being said, imprints and well preserved remains are found more and more as time goes on, and they paint a pretty clear picture, friend. That argument can't work forever and to be honest, it barely works now.

>>2413752
It's a good point regardless of how often you see it, buddy.

>>2413765
We don't know what they looked like and we never will. Accumulated evdicence will never change that.

And if we are going on the body of evdicence, they probably didn't have feathers.(but we will never know).

File: Sinosauropteryx-closeup.jpg (20KB, 278x279px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 278x279px

>>2413512
Many dinosaur fossils have been discovered to have feathers, feel free to google/scihub scientific article, papers, studies, and images of evidence of feathered dinosaurs. Keep in mind many other dinosaurs, definitively did not as seen in other fossils, depends on the type of dinosaur. Also birds are avian dinosaurs, which therefore counts as feathered dinosaurs.

>>2413765
>It's a good point regardless of how often you see it, buddy.

No, you just wrote a novel on skinwrapping a thread arguing about hair and scales for no reason other than to flair your autism. The only time I EVER see depictions of skinwrapping is when you post them.

File: dinosaur no feathers.jpg (65KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 480x640px

>>2413765
>It's a good point regardless of how often you see it, buddy
not really.

your examples are pretty bad. Because that's actually about what those birds look like without their feathers.

so what you think of as shrink wrapping is just not imagining feathers or scales or fur on animals. Which is a perfectly defensible strategy when there are no feathers or scales or fur known in them or their relatives. Of course that's very unlikely to happen with birds.

>>2413826
Okay, so:
a.) The concept of Dinosaur shrink wrapping is huge when you're talking about Dinosaurs especially about feathers and scales. The way we perceive dinos determines the way we see them and whether or not we can make critical assessments of their biology hinges on whether or not our internal image of what a dinosaur is is correct. If someone's idea of a shrink wrapped dino is their internal view of what a dinosaur looks like, then of course they're going to rail hard against the concept of feathering. The truth of the matter is that the concept of shrink wrapping is important to conversations like this when feathered dino information is brought up, because in understanding it and choosing to discard those depictions of dinosaurs because we understand what it is and what's wrong with it, we can better understand feathering and move forward in a way where or visions of dinosaurs can be colored by evidence rather than childhood wonder or the ideas of what these animals were painted by artists more than a hundred years ago.

And b.) This is literally my first time visiting /an/ in what must be almost ten years, now. And even then, I think it's my second time overall? So clearly you're letting your anger get the best of you. If I were you, I'ld sit down and calmly look at myself and my choices and my actions and think about whether this is really an argument you want to have with another person. Or if it's maybe an argument you want to have with yourself.

>>2413848
>in what must be almost ten years, now
I remember you from before. You never made me angry though. I think it's an important conversation for artists to have.

paleontologists might not care as much.

>>2413509
Dilong and Yutyrannus, sure, they were cold weather dunos and feathers would help to keep warm. T.rex on the other hand was a sub tropical/temperate species and would have no use for feathers.

>>2413754
Give me one line of solid evidence that would suggest that sauropods had trunks

File: Brachioskull.gif (8KB, 339x283px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 339x283px

>>2413851

>>2413851

It's because of where the nostrils are. I actuall think it's likely a more efficient way to take in air because it has a fucklong way to go to reach the lungs, and there's a lot of blood that needs oxygen.

File: 12805901_10207080301938940_3806625193139444929_n.jpg (10KB, 440x240px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 440x240px

>>2413598
>if you believe in evolution
Fucking kek

File: image.jpg (832KB, 2944x1709px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 2944x1709px

>>2413860
There are no muscle scars along narial rim that would be able to support a functioning trunk.
Nobody suggests these features for hadrosaurs which also retain relatively large narial apertures.
Besides, what would be the use of having a trunk to grab vegetation? They already have long necks.

File: DCt4aMRXsAI2mo5[1].jpg (258KB, 1128x1200px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1128x1200px

Let's see if we can get this shitshow back on track. It's not a dinosaur, but what do you think about this new stem-caecilian that basically vindicates both sides of the Lissamphibia monophyly vs diphyly debate?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/13/1706752114.abstract

>>2413847
wow i never realized how creepy a chicken with out feathers looked

>>2414156
i think i dont know what the fuck is going on

>>2413509
>did dinosaurs had (feathers/proto fetahers/quills/etc):

a)sauropods - NO. Absolute zero proof.

b)large theropods - probably not, with a slight chance of proto feathers. Actual feathers? - NO. Any proof? - one individual living in cold climate had fur-like proto-feather coating for heat-retention. That is not a great enough proof to claim everyone in this subcategory had them. And most big theropods were large, active, a lot of heat producing creatures living in warm climate, so feathers or feather-like objects would be unwelcoming as they may cause owerheating.

c)smaller theropods - some yes, some - probably/maybe/unlikely - depends on the species. Birds evolved out of smaller theropods, as such, the actual feathers are found only in this subcategory of dinosaurs.

d)Ornithischians - some were found to have quills on tails and some - fur-like proto feathers. Very few cases. Actual feathers? -NO. The vast majority didn't had anything but scales though - because of their vast variety it's illogical to think everyone would have some unneeded specific trait - instead, it's most likely it evolved independently (actually it's even now being disputed whether ornithischians' proto "feathers" are even related to theropods' feathers.

>>2413808
>many
"many" is a misleading generalisation. There are many feathered smaller theropods found - the subcategory of dinosaurs, that evolved this specific trait 0- actual feathers - and eventually some of them became birds. For other subcategories - very few findings exist, and all of them are proto feathers - things that don't look like feathers, has separate, possibly even largely unrelated origin. Think how porcupines have quills. You don't call porcupines feathered, do you?

>>2414247
so basically your saying no, they dont have feathers

>>2413765
how did it clean it self?

>>2413743
I'm little more than a layman but I have deep doubts over the Torosaurus =Triceratops idea

>>2414323
a paper came out last week proving Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers. So it wasn't a problem.

>>2413692
>being this much of an arrogant simpleton
really makes you think

>>2413749
4u

First of all, no one's a retard. Ok. Anyway, scientists just found out that mainly the gay dinosaurs had feathers

> I really hate jews and literally worship the ground Trump floats over.
is this a bait?

>>2414320
No, I'm not denying some had them (evolution is a thing after all, birds evolved out from feathered dinosaurs), but the whole "all/most dinosaurs were feathered" thing is bullshit at it's finest, and from the scientific perspective, an outrageous claim based on little to none actual evidence which, if properly peer-reviewed and debated, never should have been accepted without first being butchered into something much more tamer and reasonable. The conclusion should've been "all dinosaurs possibly had the ability to develop various advanced body-covering traits" or something like that, which would have been nothing new and fascinating.

tldr, if someone says that any dino (that's not a smaller, bird-related theropod) had actual feathers - it's zero-proof bullshit.

File: reptile eye.jpg (829KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 2560x1600px

>>2413509
Some dinosaurs were almost fully covered in feathers, namely the theropods (the genus that included most of the 'scary predators' like the dromeosaurs and the Tyrannosaurids). Sauropods and Ceratopsians likely had small plumes of pseudo-feathers but it is largely unknown. I like the idea of a Jurassic Park giant lizard monster more than a big bird, but sadly T. Rex had a layer of feathers covering the upper half of it's body, and was almost completely covered as a juvenile. Remember that birds=Ave and Ave is a sub branch of the Theropoda family.
Dinosaurs had feathers, at LEAST some did. I'm not willing to defend that all dinosaurs had them because I doubt it.
Why is this even an argument? Paleontology is a constantly developing subject and there is conclusive evidence telling us they had them. The trend with dinosaur discovery seems to be at first thinking they were big lizards and slowly realizing they were more bird-like.

Just remember that the dinosaur is the 'bridge' between birds and reptiles, so interpret that as you'd like.

>>2414868
They are the avatars?

Think it like this. Every bird is a dinosaur, not every dinosaur was a bird. Imagine that all mamals where extinguished execpt for bats. Bats are mamals, but they arent a very good exemple of a mamal.

File: kek.jpg (80KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1024x640px

>>2414875
Thank you
>>2414874
What ? I can't tell if this is a reference to the last airbender or the James Cameron movie

>>2413733

Not all theropods were feathered. There's good evidence of carnosaurs being mostly scaly.

But coelurosaurs had feathers to various degrees.

>>2413743

The relationship between Torosaurus and Triceratops is still being debated.

>>2414868

Theropods is a large group that included many species known to be scaly.

A subset of theropods developed the structures that became actual feathers.

>>2414910
Idk if anyone knows but are certain theropods that are known to have scaly structures on their bodies/heads (Ceratosaurus, Carnosaurus, Allosaurus, etc) have feathers? The contrast between those structures and feathers/protofeathers would be weird to me.

File: ceratosaurus.png (1MB, 2800x1172px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2800x1172px

>>2414915

File: we wuz cockatiel.png (26KB, 746x600px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 746x600px

Damn /an/, this is as bad as /tg/ responding to bait. Wasn't there some scaly t-rex skin found pretty recently as well?

>>2414868
there is so much wrong shit in this reply.
1.
Large theropods (trex and stuff) diverged way way before the smaller theropods developed feathers. This means they didn't have feathers unless they developed them independently (which clearly didn't happen since there's no proof of it).

2.
>Sauropods and Ceratopsians likely had small plumes of pseudo-feathers but it is largely unknown.
No recorded proof means you're telling people lies. Baseless lies. Not even debatable lies.

3.
>T. Rex had a layer of feathers covering the upper half of it's body, and was almost completely covered as a juvenile.
Utter bullshit. Like as utter bullshit as it gets, again, with zero proof. Also I like how you lunatics always say T-rex was feather-covered on his upper half, while, comically, this is part of this dinosaur that we don't have skin samples of. We have scaly skin samples of it's legs, tail, bottom body parts and head, but not of upper body. And you lunatics decide that this part must be feather-covered. L. O. L. What a joke.

It's as simple as that" a branch of dinosaurs - smaller theropods developed flying feathers and then some species, which didn't just went extinct, evolved into birds. Only this small subcategory had feathers, saying that all the rest had them is just ridiculous.

>>2415059
>Baseless proof

so yutyrannus didnt exist huh? Given the trend of theropods having feathers, what makes you not have critical thinking on the possibility that T. Rex or other large theropods had feathers?Also, I said it was largely unknown but it is thought to be that some sauropods and ceratopsians had small clusters of proto feathers.
>saying that all the rest had them is just ridiculous.
Lmaoing at your life rn my friend, go get your outdated dinosaur books and look up "Yutyrannus" or any large dromeosaur

Also, never said that all theropods had feathers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Skin_and_feathers
I was off for saying things conclusively but the trend I mentioned has yet to be proven wrong

>>2415167
>yutyrannus
had fur-like proto feather covering for heat retention since it lived in colder climate.
>one case of something that isn't scales on large theropods

>calling this a trend
is this scientific, or statistical illiteracy. I don't even know.

besides,
"largely unknown" = no proof. It is baseless speculation, or in other words, fantasy. Get help.

>>2414135
Also elephants have a brain the size of a medicine ball to help control the 60 odd thousand muscles in their trunk.

>>2414135
>There are no muscle scars
Literally the whole skull is covered in muscles, every inch of it has muscles attached. Meaning the entire thing is a "muscle scar."

if you're going to make stuff up try to do some research first to see if your lies are plausible.

>>2414868
>>2415167
it's not how it works. If we look at the more recent creatures, we can see how their looks constantly change, new traits appear, decay away, reappear again, and so on. We have countless examples of similar advanced traits developing in completely unrelated creatures. To claim, that all/most dinosaurs had feathers or feather-like-things without having actual proofs, moreover, to claim that those feathers and feather-like-things have shared ancestry and, throughout the millions of years of dinosaur evolution, were always present in all/most species, is... simply stupid. Incoherently stupid. We know that bird-like feathers evolved somewhere among the lesser theropods, and from there, were passed onto birds. They never interacted on genetic level with any other category of dinosaurs, including the large theropods. Just the way various species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects and other creatures have a capability to evolve some peculiar new traits, various dinosaur species too, had the ability to independently develop various traits, in our case, various "feather"-like things. Some developed quills, some - fur-like coverings. But those traits are true only to themselves and those species, that evolved out of them, and even then, very often some traits go away as they lose their purpose. Those traits, are only available horizontally (specA evolves into specB), not vertically (specA diverges into SpecA1 and spec A2) among the species. If specA had the trait, it doesn't mean the specB will still have it. If SpecA1 develops a trait, the only way specA2 could have that trait is if it accidentally evolves it independently. That's how biology works, and your claims, are flawed by design. To claim such things without having actual evidence, is nothing more than scientific illiteracy.

File: 1490225069973.jpg (36KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x400px

>>2415059
>>2415167
>>2415190
>>2415194
>>2415206
>>2415217
it took me a couple days but I got you fuckers! you guys take the bait so hard every time!

File: laughing .jpg (12KB, 255x160px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 255x160px

the thing is you guys are so smart but your soooo dumb!

File: l04he.jpg (27KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 399x385px

>>2415206
>if you're going to make stuff up try to do some research first to see if your lies are plausible.

Haha you dumb motherfucker. I work with sauropod neuroanatomy and musculature.

Now if you still want retard screech about how much you know about dinosaurs, go back to tumblr. They seem to be pretty welcoming to fags anyways.

>>2415417
>I work with sauropod neuroanatomy and musculature.
lies

>>2415235
>>2415239
>>2415417
Anon, I have bad news for you. You are a miserable, stinky, basement-dwelling loser with no chance at sexual reproduction. Sorry, but there's no cure.

File: herpes infection of the brain.jpg (26KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 349x642px

>>2415235

>>2415421
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ whatever helps you sleep at night

>>2415441
Then you should have no trouble circling the jugular muscle insertion scar from m. adductor mandibulae externus profundus on that brach skull up there.

or perhaps you can tell me where VII exits on that animal, and what that says about whether or not it has a trunk?

File: image.jpg (106KB, 640x534px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 640x534px

>>2415445
>jugular muscle insertion scar from m. adductor mandibulae externus profundus

No such thing as jugular muscle. m. AMEP has one head which is attached to the medial surangular and dorsotemporal fossa

>cranial nerve VII
Position doesn't really mean too much, but emerges rostroventral of the floccular lobe.

What really matters is how small the facial nerve is.
Relative to extant trunk bearers the facial nerve for sauropods is incredibly narrow. Meaning that if they had a trunk, it probably wasn't prehensile or didn't retain many nerve endings. If that were the case, what would be the point of having trunk.

>>2415742
>No such thing as jugular muscle
jugular insertion, not muscle. I notice you didn't show it on the skull.
>emerges rostroventral of the floccular lobe.
kek
haven't read any osteology yet, huh?


>Position doesn't really mean too much,
>What really matters is how small the facial nerve is.
there you go. One out of three aint bad.
I assumed you were talking shit because you didn't make that point from the beginning. Instead you make up some shit about muscle attachment scars that's not even close to true.

maybe you didn't make the point because you didn't know it then.

>>2415838
Prove me wrong then.
Where is the jugular insertion?
Where does the facial nerve emerge on the endocast for sauropods?
What muscles attach to the external surface of the rostrum?

>>2415869
I was testing you, not arguing with you.

facial muscles don't usually leave perceptible insertion scars, VII doesn't exit the "endocast," and you correctly identified the relevant fact- size of VII matters, not location.

I'm not interested in proving you wrong. I am the only person here who would know if you're bullshitting, and I already have my answer.

File: 6-3_big.jpg (111KB, 526x633px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 526x633px

>>2413509
>Yes, they did
>Does not mean overrule scales, as they likely had both; similar to modern birds
>Dinosaurs had a very unique evolution compared to other reptiles
Evidence of primitive feathering can be found with some of the very most primitive dinosaurs (Kulindaromeus zabaikalicus). The closest relative to dinosauria were pterosaurs, which also had fluffy primitive feathering. Longisquama, a close relative to the ancestral line to pterosaurs and dinosauria had FEATHERING.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAixpQcqdU
Meaning feathering was already long deeply a part of their biology.


Hell, some dinosaurs even had quill knobs, like dakotaraptor and concavonator. Many have preserve feathers.
The only question now is: What was the ratio?

>>2413509
>and literally worship the ground Trump floats over.
go back to redit

>>2416010
>Longisquama, a close relative to the ancestral line to pterosaurs and dinosauria had FEATHERING.
this idea was firmly rejected 14 years ago.
probably before you were born. Feduccia has no fans here.

>>2415891
>>2415891

>entire face is literally a muscle scar
>facial muscles don't leave scars
Well now your just being contradictory.

>cranial nerve VII
this isn't a paper review, the intended idea was conveyed, you're just being nit picky; emerges from endocast, exits from prootic

You didn't answer about the jugular insertion. Enlighten me.

File: Yi_qi_fossil.jpg (189KB, 1280x938px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1280x938px

>>2416010
There was even an ancient Jurassic gliding dinosaur called yi-qi with batlike skin membrane wings. Despite not using feathers for flight, it still showed blatant signs of being feathered.

>>2416053
>the intended idea was conveyed, you're just being nit picky
no, I'm checking if you're formally trained or just well read.

the rostro-caudal language is obscure but not extinct. A formally trained anatomist isn't going to speak of nerves exiting the endocast though. The cast of the nerve is part of the endocast.
>You didn't answer about the jugular insertion. Enlighten me.
I did answer. The lateral face of the jugal doesn't generally display any ruggosity of the periosteum that would indicate a muscle attachment despite a number of facial muscles having attached there. This is typical of the dermatocranium- the facial muscles don't generally leave visible scars.

Most cranial ruggosities in dinosaurs are associated with synovium or external ornamentation. Muscle scars are found, but not generally on the external dermatocranium.

Two words:
Phylogenetical bracketing

>>2416074
bracketing is inconclusive.
Using extant taxa we find crocodilians (diverged b4 dinosaurs) lack feathers while birds (diverged after dinosaurs) have them. This does nothing to prove that dinosaurs had feathers.

Using a combination of extinct and extant taxa we find that extant dinosaurs (birds) have feathers, but there is no evidence that any ancestor of dinosaurs did. This indicates that feathers evolved after dinosaurs, meaning not all had them.

using extinct taxa things get even more confusing with flight feathers only found in avialans, pennate feathers are only found in maniraptorans, and downy feathers are inferred in maniraptorans and known in an unrelated ornithischian. Then there's a number of other spines and filaments in other taxa that may or may not be related to feathers.

So bracketing shows the same thing the fossils do- a tiny branch of dinosaurs had feathers, most did not.

Why do you keep baiting this thread OP?
Of course dinosaurs had feathers, not all but there were.

You just made this to start a an argument about T.Rex having feathers

>>2416065
There's where the confusion lies. I have never read or heard anyone refer to the jugal bone or region as jugular. Not for archosaurs anyways.

>The lateral face of the jugal doesn't generally display any ruggosity
This is true, but the use of the word "facial muscles" for archosaurs isn't useful as they, quite simply, did not have them. Unless they were analogously evolved (for which there is really no evidence for in archosauria), facial muscles are exclusive to mammal line sauropsids.

>few muscles scars on the external dermatocranium
This is true. For sauropods and theropods, it is likely that the muscles associated with mastication were almost exclusively attaching medially with next to none attaching to the external dermatocranium (including the jugal).

My training was exclusively geological. I have only taken a few anatomy courses which completely revolved around humans. Everything I learned about archosaurian biology was from reading and dissections.

>>2416089
the statement "dinosaurs had feathers" is not false, but also, not right too, because of it's misleading nature. The problem, when you keep parading with such clickbait headlines, is that the general public starts to believe dinosaurs in general were feathered (sauropods, t-rexes, everyone gets fucking feathers), while the truth is quite the opposite. It should be clear to any moron that bird related dinosaurs were feathered, so the rest of discussion, of "whether dinosaurs were feathered or not" should hold the consensus that they weren't, because we are talking about them as a whole.

>>2416363
>next to none attaching to the external dermatocranium (including the jugal)

I should note that ornithischians kind of do their own thing. Several species had muscles which attached to the external dermatocranium along or in proximity to the rostrum (e.g. Heterodontosaurus, Psittacosaurus)

>>2416363
>it is likely that the muscles associated with mastication were almost exclusively attaching medially with next to none attaching to the external dermatocranium (including the jugal).
let's ignore this horseshit for a second and move on to what we agree on:
>>2416487
>Several species had muscles which attached to the external dermatocranium along or in proximity to the rostrum (e.g. Heterodontosaurus, Psittacosaurus)
facial muscles are inferred in a number of ornithischian lineages DESPITE THE FACT THAT ATTACHMENT SCARS ARE NOT FOUND.

So we agree that the lack of scarring is not evidence of the lack of muscles.

so the lack of attachment scars on the face of Brachiosaurus is NOT a working argument against a trunk.

>>2414414
Read the paper as opposed to just looking at clickbait headlines.

>>2416555
you mean this?
>Combined with evidence from other tyrannosaurids, the integument of HMNS 2006.1743.01 provides compelling evidence of an entirely squamous covering in Tyrannosaurus.
that means it was entirely scaled.

File: sauropod muscles.png (482KB, 724x480px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 724x480px

>>2416532
>let's ignore this horseshit for a second and move on to what we agree on:
Ignored it for one second. Now, tell me how we know that there are muscles here then? We can tell masticational muscles are not there because these are large and usually stronger muscles which do leave scars. Show me which theropods and sauropods had muscles which attached to the LATERAL surface of the dermatocranium (not including the braincase, since we are talking about the external dermatocranium). Not dorsal, ventral, rostral, or caudal. Lateral.

Image from Button et al., 2016 (Comparative cranial myology and biomechanics of and evolution of the sauropod feeding apparatus)

>so the lack of attachment scars on the face of Brachiosaurus is NOT a working argument against a trunk.
But it is. Assuming this trunk has any large amount of mass, there will be a muscle scar. Even the short proboscises of tapirs leave scars on the rim of the nasal (not including the process like nature of the nasal).

Taken directly out of Knoll et al., 2008 (Paleoneurological evidence against a proboscis in the sauropod dinosaur Diplodocus)
"In fact, the absence of observable muscle scars on the skull bones surrounding the narial opening in sauropods is a clear-cut argument against the existence of a heavily muscled trunk."

>>2416570
>Even the short proboscises of tapirs leave scars on the rim of the nasal
analogy doesn't work.

the human buccinator leaves scars on the bones of the face but those scars aren't present on ornithischians inferred to have buccinators.

the weight of the muscle or the organ doesn't determine whether a scar will exist or not. Muscle scars are found for tiny muscles in lots of extant animals.

>>2416394
You're right, but every time this thread(did dinosaurs have feathers?) comes up, which had a big resurgence after that T Rex discovery last week or so, it gets made too frequently with all the OP images displaying a T Rex of some sort.

>>2416753
this has been going on for close to 10 years now. I have been arguing that rex didn't have feathers here since shortly after the Wyrex skin was first found in 2008 iirc.

/an/ has consistently shit on me and called me a troll for making that argument, despite several famous paleontologists saying exactly the same things years back. I continue to make the argument because I find /an/'s tribalistic defense of bad ideas amusing. I enjoy the cognitive dissonance of others. In that regard I have been 'trolling' /an/ with scaled rex for almost 10 years now. I don't get banned for it though because what I say is true and you can't be banned for trolling people with the truth.

the paper actually screwed it up, because it came out and said exactly the same things I've been saying for years (what an odd coincidence!). Now only the very hardcore would disagree with me, and they will soon be forgotten or mocked until they change their opinions. Their arguments have lost credibility with the public.

they never had credibility in science, nobody has ever published in a peer-refereed journal that rex had feathers. That would be silly.

File: 29_prean_burian_brachiosaurus.jpg (124KB, 1032x720px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1032x720px

>>2413736
>aquatic sauropods
/comfy/

File: 1483773744255.jpg (48KB, 687x461px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 687x461px

>>2414156

>>2414948
No one really got baited though, they just kind of made note of the bait and then used the thread for a related conversation instead of making a new one

>>2416089
I am the OP and yes you are correct, I am a T-Rex fanboy, and just wanted to troll /AN/

File: dinosaur-feathers-amber-5-Xing-et-al-2016.jpg (43KB, 540x360px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 540x360px

>>2413509
>Literal highly detailed feathers on a fossilized dinosaur tail forever encased in amber.
If this does not convince you that dinosaurs had feathers, I don't think anything will.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/feathered-dinosaur-tail-amber-theropod-myanmar-burma-cretaceous/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/entire-chunk-feathered-dinosaur-discovered-amber/

>hates jews
>loves Trump and his jewish family
nu/pol/ in a nutshell

>>2417362
lets get one thing straight here I'm a Bannon guy all the way, and ive been coming to /pol/ since the Cretaceous age! ha alittle dino humor for you!

>>2414910
>>2415059
All Archosaurs possess(ed) the genetic material for feathers, even modern day crocodiles (though it's used to produce scutes rather than feathers)
Pterosaurs have Pycnofibres
Triceratops had quills
The only sub groups of saurians I can confidently say didn't have feathers are larger herbivores such as sauropods

File: 800px-Microraptor_gui_holotype.png (729KB, 800x410px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 800x410px

I can't imagine any Sauropods having feathers but a lot of Cretaceous and Jurassic bipedal dinosaurs did. There's imprints of feathers on this velociraptor fossil.

>>2417457
I'm a PALEOconservative, myself

Why do conservatives feel the need to broadcast their political orientation at every opportunity?
Being conservative isn't a badge of honor, everyone thinks you're pants-on-head retarded and nobody gives a shit outside of your containment board.

File: reaction, happy face.jpg (2KB, 124x83px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 124x83px

>>2417765
I see what you did there!

>>2417751
>Velociraptor
>image name.

File: Caudipteryx.jpg (482KB, 1230x1138px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1230x1138px

>>2413509

File: Psittacosaurus_mongoliensis.jpg (279KB, 1636x772px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1636x772px

>>2413509
>Tail

>>2418644
Looks like it died from eating too many rocks

>>2418778
>Gastroliths
It kind of does, but it is actually a digestive strategy employed by crocodilians and many kinds of birds. It allow them to break down food easier, especially if they do not actually chew much and/or eat very tough materials.


Although back when people did not understand the function, it was just assumed it was because they were too 'stupid' to realize rocks were not food.

>>2418650
>>2417731
>feathers
you call porcupines feathered too, don't you?

It's looking more and more unlikely that Tyrannosaurus Rex had any feathers.

>>2420200
only to the public.

paleontologists knew it didn't have feathers 9 years ago. Yutyrannus and Dilong never changed that.

>>2420331
True, the vast majority of people aren't paleontologists.

File: no, artists aren't smarter than anatomists.jpg (155KB, 1263x627px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1263x627px

>>2413736
>>2413743
>>2413744
Stop posting this shit

File: 1244648759869.jpg (437KB, 900x464px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 900x464px

>>2413512
The type specimen for microraptor was found with veined feathers, and sinosauropteryx was found with down. See >>2413808. Yutyrannus is an example of a large theropod with feathers (in this case, down, since yutyrannus was a very early relative of t rex and tyranosauroids are among the more primitive coelurosaurs)

It's possible that some form of keratin based body covering predates the ornothischia/saurischia split, so even ceratopsians might have had quills. However, proper veined feathers have only been found amongst maniraptors

So not only is it looking to be unlikely that T Rex was feathered, it's also unlikely that T Rex had lips. Did Jurassic Park get it right on their first try?

>>2420369

Maybe so, I was kinda pissed when the whole feather revelation took hold (muh childhood). Slowly I accepted it, and at this point raptors seem incomplete without them.

I had finally gotten used to feathered Rex, even enthusiastic about it, and the rug got pulled out underneath me once again. Kind of amusing we're back to JP, but it was a revolutionary depiction.

Oh well, we still have Yutyrannus for fluffy tyrannosaur.

>>2413765
>Though it's very likely the trex had feathers.
No it's not.

>>2420544
>falling for the feathered rex meme
You're own fault m8. There was never a shred of evidence that it had feathers, nor was there ever any paper that claimed as much. We've had wyrex for what, almost 10 years now? That alone should have put the debate to an end, but no, featherfags just said "no, the parts that were feathered are the ones you don't have," despite having no evidence to support that claim. Thank God for Bell et al. for taking the time to actually show, no, rex was not a giant chicken.

>>2413765
Maybe the ones that lived in the colder climates did, but haven't most rexes left naked skin impressions?

>>2413509
NO

STOP

NO
FUCKING
FEATHERS

File: Saurian T-Rex.jpg (3MB, 6000x2525px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6000x2525px

>>2420571
Bell et al. doesn't matter. It is still likely to have been feathered. Deal with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxE68c9rYa0
https://twitter.com/SaurianGame/status/872643478135513088

>>2413641
Hair is a type of scale, but not all scales are hair.

>>2420579
>thinks Trey the Explainer outranks actual scientists

that vid is so full of lies it's funny. There's a reason he's not a scientist. That cheese would get shredded by peer-review.

>>2420589
Not an argument. You haven't debunked Trey's video because you can't.

>>2420594
I have.
I guess I should've screenshotted it.

off the top of my head without watching his shit again:
none of the dinos he says have feathers on the back and scales everywhere else actually do.
Yutyrannus didn't have scales on the bare patches.
The bare patches on the 3 Yutyrannus specimens were all in different places meaning the animals were entirely feathered and the bare patches are artifacts of fossilization.
Ostriches don't have scales on their bare spots.
The size of the skin patches doesn't matter unless he's trying to pretend there's feathers in between all of them which is absurd.

there's some more bullshit in there but honestly nobody watches him so I'm not going to bother with another full debunking.

>>2420597
Just leave a comment on his video.

>>2420601
I'm not joining youtube just to discredit this joker.

and really I don't need to. He's popular as long as he explains science. As soon as he starts trying to explain why science is wrong his audience is going to back away.

>>2420960
You give featherfags far too much credit.

>>2421040
maybe but they'll die of old age waiting for proof of rex feathers to magically appear.

they're not my problem.

>trumptard doesn't know anything
>trumptard comes to 4chan for knowledge
It's not surprising at all

>>2413754
>I just for real can't figure out why people want to cling to old fashioned dinosaurs when they're so inaccurate

aesthetic, jurassic park influence and most depictions of feathered dinosaurs look too silly/dumb to be taken seriously. the last and first point are why if I ever draw dinosaurs, it'll be with scales.

>>2421406
Relatively smaller dinos like raptors and tyrannosaurids that lived in cold climates had feathers, T. rex (which lived in the tropics) probably didn't. It's like mostly hairless modern elephants (native to the tropics) versus wooly mammoths in the taiga and Arctic.

>>2413590
that doesn't mean they had feathers our ancestors had gills do you have gills ?

fucking retard learn how evolution works

>>2421579
this seems like the most reasonable explanation

>>2420544
Interesting, in my case, I was increasingly annoyed with the general public unwillingnes to accept that Birds were basically Dinosaurs, and that feathers or feather like ligaments were more widespread than most people knew, and kept on mentioning it every chance I got, initiating countless heated debates with people who couldn't stand the thought of even raptors possibly having feathers. Untill one day, and this happened within the span of a few weeks, everything got suddenly turned around and I found myself arguing AGAINST feathers. Because yes, it became accepted that feathers were more widespread in Dinosaurs than initialy thought, but people also went completely crazy with the idea, going so far as to create ridiculous art of parrot Triceratopses and Sauropods with feathers. And then defending it to boot, using the exact same arguments I had used before, but in retarded ways, twisting them to suit their needs and their fancy new world view, and then they told me I was stuck in the past and needed to get over my nostalgia for Jurassic Park.

But it seems that lately the feather craze is starting to die down a bit, at least to me. But then again, I have mostly limited myself to this place and Youtube these past few months.

>>2413509
Dinos didnt exsit dumb ass piece of shit

>>2420579
You can disagree with it, but unless you have evidence that shows tyrannosaurids have feathers, you are an idiot.

File: evolution explained.jpg (94KB, 682x263px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 682x263px

>>2413509

File: trully horrifying.jpg (341KB, 1200x670px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1200x670px

>>2420579
>>2413765
pic related

>>2416893
>all day long in the water
it must suck being a lake giraffe

>>2413590
>Considering a chicken is the closest thing to a T-Rex.
Anon there are far more primitive birds than fucking chicken. Ratites for example.

>>2423236
>>2413590
Literally every bird is equally related to Tyrannosaurus

>>2423270
true in that all birds share the same MRCA with rex.
false in that not all birds are equally derived from that MRCA.

Just like we could say that Angela Merkel is equally related to Hitler as all humans are, or more related to Hitler than my mother is. Both are valid paradigms. The real story is that rex isn't closely related to birds at all.

File: nature10906-f2.2.jpg (99KB, 600x492px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x492px

>>2413512

>>2423432
I should have clarified: All recent birds are equally related to Tyrannosaurus, but yes.

>>2414767
Literally no one believes they ALL had feathers.