>it's a "dinosaur thread gone wrong after a featherfag

>it's an 'autist makes a thread' episode

>OP complains a about feathers again

What is the more potent method of derailing a thread? Scalefags or Ibrahim et. al.?

>>2464180
Is it weird that i only want to have a normal disscusion about prehistoric life with normal and open minded people on my favourite board without someone shitposting or baiting?

File: [email protected] (808B, 32x32px) Image search: [Google]

808B, 32x32px

>>2464180
Mods, please sticky my thread for 1 month. This is a serious issue that affects prehistoric threads and it can be stopped in one fell swoop of mod action.

>>2464196
Redbill me on Ibrahim et. al.

>>2464401
Ibrahim is a german
et al. is alot of other people

>>2464393
Thats thread REALLY needs to be stickied. I havent gotten a SINGLE normal prehistoric-thread going since a whole year because of this shit

File: 1874087885_ca6e0fc79f.jpg (121KB, 500x482px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 500x482px

>>2464180
>Short Answer: They had both scales and feathers.
Scales and feathers are not really mutually exclusive, and there is plenty of evidence to support even some of the most primitive dinosaurs (and even the closest relatives to dinosauria) had both.
Dinosaurs can have parts of their bodies mostly scaly or feathery.
Heck, feathers can exist between scales or scales under fluffy feathers; as seem with modern owl feet.


The only real debate now should be ratios. As in, how scaly or feathery were certain dinosaurs; which is a mainly minor discussion at best.

File: Sereno's Spinosaurus and Scott's Spinosaurus.jpg (127KB, 1600x540px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1600x540px

>>2464401
Spinosaurus is now pretty revised based on fossil findings Ibrahim collected from Moroccan fossil dealers. It's a quadruped with a funky sail and teeny-tiny hind legs.

Whoops, what's that, turns out Ibrahim used multiple specimens of various age groups some of which are not the same genus, maybe even same species? Well, congratulations Bobby, your thread just sunk into a debate on the legitimacy of his paper/findings.

File: Close-up-of-barn-owl-foot.jpg (54KB, 650x437px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 650x437px

>>2464436

>>2464437
>some of which are not the same genus, maybe even same species?
Really? Why'd he do that? He must hate spino >:|

>>2464437
Whether it's walking on hind legs has less to do with their length and more to do with its center of mass.

>>2464490
>Why'd he do that?
He really wanted to find and publish proof that spino was fully aquatic. So he went out and collected only things that agreed with his conclusion while rejecting things that cast doubt.

File: 1483243908365.png (315KB, 850x734px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 850x734px

>>2464180
I literally came here to post this thread, so I'll just post my post.

>can't discuss dinosaurs without arguing about feathers or t-rex/spinosaurus shitposting (and shrinkwrapping to a lesser extent)
Is fucking nothing sacred? Everything I love has been tarnished by something that makes it annoying to talk about.

>>2464490
just like how homeboy wanted to paint rex as a scavenger to be "revolutionary" or whatever

also just gonna leave this here

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXHSMT69R6A

And now the greasy jurassic park fandom found its way into this thread too wow

>Muh Spinosaur was a bipedal monster i can proove it reeally!!

>Muh Trex is a non-scavenging monster i can proove it reeally!!!

>Muh dinosars didnt got no feathars thats for birdies eww!

>Muh dimetrodons sail was fucked up by those science people and now im saltyy!!

Can you guys PLEASE just leave this board and go back to reading your "childrens first dinosaur book" from the 80's or something, because we definitely cant help you guys here if you want your "nostalgia-dinosaurs" back.

>>2464801
>Trex is a non-scavenging monster
many triceratops and anatotitan fossils (and t-rex fossils) have t-rex bite marks with scar tissue meaning that individual was attacked while it was alive

t-rexes lived a short, harsh, violent life, factually

>>2464490
because he was right

http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2014/09/spinosaurus-revolution-episodio-v.html

File: tafonomia+spino+sigi.jpg (153KB, 1600x992px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1600x992px

>>2464809
So what exactly are we looking at here? They found a skeleton this complete, or?

>>2464492
Exactly, but most of these public shit flinging competitions tend to overlook that. And also the fact that frontal limbs aren't ideal at all for supporting the weight of the animal under the knuckle walking model.

File: 2CC5C4B4-D825-4A42-9CE7-7D30A798E964-247-0000001E8D9FF8FD_tmp.jpg (25KB, 251x325px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 251x325px

>>2464801
Proof that triceratops was covered in feathers, faggot
And by proof i mean links from reasonable resources, not from your ass

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

>>2464773
I'm not convinced it isn't some faggot just looking to ruin a thread whenever it happens.

File: Triceratops horridus skin impression scale.jpg (88KB, 620x356px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 620x356px

>>2464814
Here's a Triceratops skin impression. Remarkably, the underbelly had rectangular scutes like an alligator.

>>2464811
hes saying that the sigilmassasaurus vertebra match ecactly to whats missing in the known spinosaurus specimens thenguessing that because of the way spinosaurus is built that as the body decays the sigilmassasaurus vertebra a popped out of place and separeate from the rest of the body due to the onset of the "death pose"

File: triceratops_prorsus_digital_sculpture_by_tyranttr-d62pe66.png (687KB, 1024x653px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1024x653px

>>2464840
See all those indented holes across the scaly skin impression? It is believed that those were for large quills; more adapted version of Psittacosaurus quills; perhaps adapted for defense, due to the thickness.

>>2464840
That is his back not his underbelly you fucktard

>>2464837
>trey the explainer
disregarded. He's like an analogue for huffingtonpost in dino-related stuff.

>>2464839
his name is /aq/fag

File: Robert.png (961KB, 1600x1407px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 1600x1407px

>mfw this thread trying to stop people from endless bickering and shitposting about feathered dinosaurs and Spinosaurus has already turned into a thread of endless bickering and shitposting about feathered dinosaurs and spinosaurus.

>>2465174
You're the only one that calls me /aq/fag, most know me as nociceptionfag or that annoying paleontologist.

I don't usually post in dinosaur threads until long after they've descended into shit and even then it's usually just to correct some inane detail.

>>2465198
And I am? I didn't even coin the term. I just lurked for a while and saw you get called that alot kek

>>2465215
It was just one anon trying to make "fetch" happen.

you can call me that if you like, I don't care. Either way I'm not usually the one that derails your threads. I take off from /an/ for months at a time, your dinosaur threads are the exact same shit when I'm gone.

File: Malcolmbanner.png (1MB, 1246x671px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1246x671px

>>2464190
But feathers give the dinos a skirt you can look under.

I'm gay

>>2464180
>it's another "/an/ sexually fetishizes dinosaurs and argues against any scientific facts that detract from their fetish" thread.

/an/ doesn't have threads about dinosaurs. Never has, never will.

>>2465347
What about all the bird threads?

>>2464391
>why do people shitpost on 4chan
gee i dunno

>>2465372
by that you could also say that all dogfags are just retarded wolfaboos

>>2465434
They are.

>>2465429
Yeah ok, i should kinda expect shitposts on this site.

Fun fact: the closest living relative of the triceratops is the modern day rhinoceros

fun fact, sauropods are technically birds and therefor feathered and capable of flight

>>2465685
source please i want to put salt on the wound of my friend who says there's no way dinos had feathers

>>2464180
fun fact: pterodactyls probably fished fish and trilobites, amonites and early cavemen out of the water to feed to their young

File: cheeto laugh.jpg (110KB, 497x640px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 497x640px

>>2465698
>and early cavemen

Having been here since the board's creation, you can see how new people are when they don't realize a good 60-80% of threads board wide are just bait. It's always been this way, even before bait memes.

>>2465897
what else do would you expect? but id say its more like 40% dog/cat threads (boring) 50% bait and 10% interesting threads that turned into shitposting

File: yutyrannusweb.jpg (47KB, 700x367px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 700x367px

I genuinely don't understand why so many anons hate the idea of feathers. Is it simply nostalgia goggles? We all watched Jurassic Park as kids, but isn't it fun and interesting to have your old worldview challenged by new evidence? Isn't that what growing and learning is all about?

>>2465975
I don't have a problem in particular with feathers, but with any depictions of dinosaurs. Not a single one of them looks like something I could actually imagine walking around and it makes me irrationally angry.

>>2465975
>here's scientific proof that tyrannosaurus rex and other dinosaurs did not possess feathers
>b-but it's okay to deny science and evidence because the evidence would mean that an initial claim would be indeed correct
top lel

>>2465994
And again a butthurt JP fanatic scaletard

>>2466029
>tfw you'll never be so delusional you deny basic science that proves you wrong
>tfw you'll never be so delusional you think anyone who disagrees with you has watched or even cares about Jurassic Park
>tfw you'll never be so delusional you think calling someone a butthurt JP fanatic scaletard somehow overcomes science, fact, evidence and reason
top lel

>>2466079
It's exactly the other way around kiddo ;^)

>>2466100
>n-no u-u k-kid
>m-muh doritoes face
How cute.

>>2465975
I don't think people care that much about feathers I think they just don't like how all dinosaur art has all dinosaurs covered in feathers regardless of species. Some were feathered and some weren't. We can't prove that for every dinosaur but we can prove it for some.

>>2465975
to understand how important this is for some people, go to /tg/ and try to insist that dragons and wvyverns are the same thing

>>2466108
Cute and true, two Pro's at the same time, scaletard ;o)

>>2466079
Why don't you provide a like to this evidence?

>>2466656
>you'll never be so mad your only response is "i-i'm right" and "u-ur just a scaletard :)"
top lel

>>2466664
The funny thing is that im still right and your'e the butthurt one, sweetie;) Its just too funny to trigger a scaletard kek

>>2466809
>i-i-i'm right
>u-u-ur butthurt n-not me b-because i use smileyfaces
>u-ur just a scaletard
top lel

>>2466820
I can almost smell the salt, oh this sweet smell ;^) I hope you have a good day because i sure enjoy it scaleboy ;o)

>>2466854
>u-ur salty
>le double emoticon face
>u-ur a s-scaletard
top lel

>>2466589
They are clearly not

>>2466855
it gets better every minute, with every top lel ;^) ;^) just accept the truth buddy ;^)

>>2466884
spamming emoticons makes you seem more and not less insecure

t. third party

>>2466900
Scared by a smiley? ;-) what a shame pal ;0)

>>2466884
>so salty that the truth of some dinosaurs having feathers and others not gets him so autistically mad he has to spam emoticons
top lel

>>2465698
First correction.
Its Pteranodon
second.
Trilobites were well extinct by the Cretaceous.
third.
CAVEMEN!?

File: nv302.jpg (32KB, 500x356px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x356px

>>2464840

File: Deinonychus.jpg (69KB, 800x346px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x346px

>>2465992
so you're telling me you couldn't image this...

>>2465992
>>2467445
...but you could imagine something like this?

File: retarded deinonychus.jpg (23KB, 510x307px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 510x307px

>>2467446
pic related i'm a dumbass

>>2467442
The woman is covering up exactly 0% of the triceratops skin and is obviously there to show its scale, you mong.

Pun unintended.

File: Triceratops underside scales.jpg (17KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x400px

>>2465026
I know that. I never said that was the underbelly. Here's the underbelly.

>>2467451
whatever roastie.
You bitches are just vain as fuck.

>>2467454
I think you're more than a little confused.

File: palm fossil.jpg (53KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x300px

>>2467454
People being in paleontology photos to show the size of something is neither new nor controversial.

>>2467345
Im glad you accept that dinosaurs have feathers, everyday you get closer to being an intelligent person ;) haha nothing personal tho honey ;^)))

>>2467520
>h-heh look i-i can strawman
>h-h-eh smiley face ur dum
>h-h--heheh le nothin personnel meymey
top lel

>>2467521
What a lovely citation buddy but not as lovely and scientifically accurate as feathered dinosaurs ;^)) pls feed me some more of them top lel's buddy ;P

>>2468480
>h-h-eh i d-don't have to g-give you citations i-i mean s-sure there's no evidence of t-t-rex and some dinosaurs h-h-having feathers b-b-but le ebin d-d-orito face
top lel

>>2468492
You can deny it as long as you want i have time buddy ;0) i like my top lel's salted btw ;))

>>2468513
>h-h-eh ur facts a-a-are just d-d-enial l-le e-emoticon i-i'm not mad u-u-u r
top lel

>>2468526
Keep on denying scaleboy, ill be there for you if you come to the right conclusion ;p i am but a simple farmer, tending to my top lel's ;^)

>>2468534
Simple you are indeed, but not in the way you'd like it to be.

>>2468534
>u-u-ur in denial n--n-not me
>s-s--so is e-e-e-veryone else including v-v-arious paleontologists i-i-i-i'm r-r-right and e-e-veryone else is w-w-wrong
top lel

>>2468537
Thanks for further approving my previous statement ;^) maybe you arent as dim as i tought afterall ;D
>>2468535
Buhu, im crying sweetheart ;))

>>2468541
>t-thanks f-f-for p-proving m-me w-wrong u-u-r s-s-still d-d-um tho s-s-miley face
top lel

>>2468544
Still got some of them nostalgia goggles on? Sadly one cant see the truth with those equipped ;^)
I'd like a top lel with ketchup and a butthurt scaletard large please ;--)

>>2468546
>u-u-ur j-j-just n-nostalgic a-a-a-and b-b-butthurt a-a-and a s-s-scaletard n-n-not me
top lel

"top lel" isnt a thing faggots

>>2468547
Its still time to change your mind for the better Anon ;-) thanks for the tasty top lel's ;0)

>>2468553
>y-y-you ss-s-should b-b-elieve what i--i-i believe e-e-even t-t-though i-it's wrong
top lel

>>2468558
Youre not able to deny all the facts my friend ;-)) nice atempt tho haha ;P Pls moar top lels bud, they are so butthurt right now ;3

>>2468566
>y-y-your d-d-denying f-f-acts n-n-ot me u--u-r b-b-butthurt n--n-n-ot m-m-e
top lel

>>2468569
how cute, i bet you still read dinosaur books from the 80's too tardy ;^) pls keep them top lel's coming ;3

>>2468572
>u-u-u-r d-d-dum a-a-a-nd c-c--cute and u-u--u-u r-r-read d-d-dinosaur b-b--books e-e-e-moticon f-f-f-ace
top lel

>>2464985
So in other words you have no proof just a guess.

>>2468574
sounds more like a self confession about your primitive view of dinosaurs than a taunt ;-33 i still apreciate your salty top lel's tho ;^)

>>2466884
>is so delusional he thinks every dinosaur must have feathers
A lot of them did, a lot of them didnt.

>>2468578
>>2468574
Jesus christ get a room already.

>>2468578
Top lel isn't salty. Your abuse of emoticons is a clear indication of salt however. Congrats on being the bigger faggot anon

>>2468580
At least they're keeping it thread related.

>>2468610
That is no excuse to go on for as long as they did. Half the thread is them going "no u"

>>2468578
>n-n-no y-y-y-you y--yyou j-j-just have a pp-p-primitive thought o-o-o-on dinosaurs nn-n-ot me u-u-r salty
top lel

>>2468612
Par for the course on /an/
It's not like this thread was made for serious discussion. I understand the back and forth can get old, that's when you just hide the thread.

>>2468614
As an outsider i can safely say your posts are more entertaining and a better style of shitposting than the other guy. You win by shitpost.

>>2468614
is this citation even directed to me anymore? xp I think your inner scaletard is having a conflict with your more intelligent scientifically accurate self, pal ;0) ;-) I think im going to give "you two" a little room for now, i hope the feathered dinosaur half of yourself is going to win tho haha ;P ;DD please leave some more butthurt top lel's under this post thanks tardy <3 ;33

>>2468620
>xp
>;P
>;DD
Holy reddit batman

>>2468620
>u-u-r not replying t-t-to m-me u-u-r j-j-ust a s-s-scaletard a-a-and a f-f-f-eathert-t--tard w-w-who i-i-is s-s-smart y--y-you're b--bbutthurt n-n-n-ot m-m-me y-y-yo-u're a-a-arguing w-w-with yourself
top lel

>>2468620
The only one but hurt here is you. Your posts are trying way too hard to be the straight man but you're just a total goofball lol

>>2464801
"Jurassic Park is the worst thing to happen to dinosaurs, and that includes when they all died."
-Jay Bauman

>>2467454
fuck off back to /r9k/

>>2468691
Thats the first time i heard a sentence so true and kekworthy at the same time

>>2467407
Flintstones, blame the Flintstones.
They're a psuedoscience family.

File: Kangasauria.jpg (943KB, 1428x914px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1428x914px

>featherfags
>scalefags
To be honest, I think they look better as reptilian 'roos.

File: trikeskin.jpg (451KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1600x1062px

>>2464985
Note really. If you look at external cast (rather the internal mold, from that picture) you can see the structures look almost like nipples... which is really weird (imagine a trike covered in nipples). What they actually supported is unknown, and the Lane skin is still in need of a detailed description. You can go see it at the Houston Science museum (you may even be able to touch it, i dunno if they still do that).

Regardless, the rest of Trike's scales looked like that of a tortoise's. Polygonal and non-overlapping.

>>2469870
>is still in need of a detailed description
>that one faggot that doesn't know we don't describe most fossils
>doesn't know that a photograph with scale bar is a sufficient description
>doesn't know that over half of paleontology is calling people up and asking them what undescribed fossils they have sitting around
>thinks fossils magically don't "count" until they've been described
>thinks scientists only learn of fossils from the literature or the dirt
>doesn't know 99% of fossils in museums aren't described and never will be

>>2469870
In fact, most dinosaur skin looks like turtle scutes - not really resembling the ordered and banded scales we see in lizards and snakes.

Crocs have random scutes too (not on their back, but on their legs and neck). I'm thinking this is the ancestral situation for archelosauria - random, smooth, small, pebbled scales that have the ability to produce a variety of epidermal structures - turtle shells, pycnofibers, fuzz, osteoderms, etc;) and that perhaps a spiny or quilled common ancestor did in fact exist.

I used to be in the other camp (That it was unlikely a common ancestor was fuzzy) but I don't think we're really thinking this out properly. Are feathers intrinsically tied to a warm-blooded metabolism, and need all derived integument be considered feathers or ancestral to feathers? Perhaps not.

Instead of obsessing over what our illustrations look like, perhaps we should focus on fossils as they are - that is - as fossils.

File: lanetrike.jpg (128KB, 753x500px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 753x500px

>>2469874
Easy there partner, I wasn't suggesting any of what you said. I'm well are most fossils aren't ever described, aren't useful scientifically, and that, yes, the level of description is usually pretty bare bones. Of course a fossils exists regardless of its description - unless you're Tom Carr and anything that disagrees with your hypothesis is waived away as "criminal" or "amateur."

But the Lane specimen records much of the animal's external appearance (even the face!) and the animal's skeleton itself is really complete and in good condition. It's something that probably needs publication and a detailed description. If Sereno can get multiple papers published on material that is utter shit, then a bona-fide Triceratops mummy deserves some attention. The people who prepared it and the museum who holds it both want it described, but Houston is Bakker's show, and he moves like a slug at getting scientific papers published.

>>2469885
>It's something that probably needs publication and a detailed description
It would boil down to 2 pages, one and a half of which was citations.

It might get done, I've seen people publish half a page about a tooth before, but at least the fucking tooth is a new species.

tl;dr: science describes new things. the same thing from a different place doesn't get described.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-31 at 10.35.23 PM.png (252KB, 610x559px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 610x559px

>>2469893
But... the skin is new. Aside from that, there are papers published on entirely unexceptional specimens. See: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151453

Even more, Osborn - who, like most of the old masters, actually produced work of some quality, in contrast to some of the stuff you see churned out today - wrote a twenty something page description of the "Trachodon" mummy. It was rigorous, possessed precise descriptions, and a pleasant read, devoid of unnecessary jargon.

>>2469903
And I should add, if it weren't obvious, even in Osborn's day duckbills were readily available. If done right (that is, if done by Bakker along with someone to moderate him), the Lane description would make for an insightful and worthy paper. Why the hell would you not want to see it published?

>>2469903
It isn't a new form of preservation (as you point out dinosaur mummies were described long ago).

It presumably doesn't differ from already published Trike skin or even dinosaur skin in general.

even if it did, it would warrant at best a photo and a couple sentences in a paper on a different subject.

On top of that IF for some reason there's something there worthy of publication it has already been described and published-
This happened the instant the museum displayed it to the public and allowed people to post photos of it online. This may not be the form of publication you imagine but it's publication none the less.

Your insults to Bakker are amusing, but he doesn't really deserve them this time. He hasn't published the fossil you naively believe he should because there's nothing to publish and/or it has already been published.

>>2470002
Saying Bakker doesn't regularly write papers himself for academic journals is a fact, not a value judgement - one he himself admits. He has varied interests. He is often consulted, and the authors are kind of enough to give him coauthor credit (See DePalma, 2015, and Bell, 2017) but he is largely focused on giving talks, field work, and writing his books. Regardless, I've spoken to the man himself about it and he (plus the man in charge of collections at Houston) want to do it - but time is limited. If it sounded like an insult, it wasn't meant as one - I meant it as a good natured criticism.

You neglect that we don't really have a whole lot ceratopsid integument described - there's some Centrosaurus skin impressions... and that's about it. Lane and the dueling dinosaurs Triceratops are the most extensive we've got. Unless you're aware of something I'm not. I'm going off of IU press's 2010 ceratopsian book. The nipple structures, however, are of course unique. And no - not all of Lane's skin is on display, some of it has actually remained with original owner.

Your insinuation that it would warrant so little description is unwarranted. Even after Osborn, we've seen whole papers dedicated to Edmontosaurus skin, using new techniques. Imagine that, papers can actually look at old stuff. I'll be damned.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2817188/

And specimens that had skin displayed in that exact same museum where Lane iis were the subject of Belll's 2017 paper on tyrannosaurid integument. In fact, Wyrex skin replicas are something of a commodity. Several of the other specimen's in Bell's paper were already published on as well.

>>2470028
>I've spoken to the man himself about it and he (plus the man in charge of collections at Houston) want to do it - but time is limited
He's polite to a fault, he probably didn't want to make you feel embarrassed by stating the obvious truth.
>Several of the other specimen's in Bell's paper were already published on as well.
that was my point.

the Wyrex skin was published 9 years ago, they got two sentences and a photo in an article about something else. Because that's about all there is to say about them. Likewise Bell's paper wasn't about describing the Wyrex skin, it was about tyrannosaurid skin in general and the Wyrex stuff was incidental to the topic.

So if the specimen is described further it will either be very brief or in a paper on another related subject.

None of which needs to be done since pictures of it have already been published.

>>2470002
To add:

Contrary to what you may be assuming, I'm not dismissive of photos, popular articles, or even postings on a chinese cartoon board. I'm just saying I would like to see an almost complete Triceratops specimen that also preserves a good portion of the animal's soft tissue technically described some day. It doesn't have to be now, doesn't have to be a year from now, doesn't have to be five years from now - preferably before Bakker kicks the bucket, because as I said, he really is the one who should do the analysis because he's damn good when he actually sits down and does it.

We're not dealing with cancer research here. This is paleontology - its not wholly serious business, and the bones can afford to wait. The fact that we've blown up this thread over my usage of "is still in need of a detailed description" rather than "lacks a detailed description" or omitting that portion of the sentence entirely is somewhat amusing though.

If you go back and look at the original comment, I was simply saying - "look at these weird structures on trike skin. contrary to popular assumptions, we don't really know what they supported or looked like in life!" to someone else. And then you started associating me with a lot of fairly stupid positions that some people in academia actually hold (e.g. Horner)

It's cool and all, but really.

At any rate, here's this quote from Mark Witton, which somewhat echo my original statement.

"Without a full description it's a little difficult to give much in the way of specifics about the skin [...] Hopefully these specimens will get a full write up soon, which might provide such details."

File: 555comonewa.jpg (31KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x375px

>>2470032
I almost spit out my beer. Bakker? Polite to a fault? Okay, now I know not to take you seriously. Clearly you've no real idea what you're talking about or spent any amount of time around the man. He is indeed very nice and very intelligent, but no, no he is not polite. Outside of my own anecdotes, I could pull out an old interview (if I could find it - it's in those old Japanese dino magazines that came out in the late 90s) where he tells the interviewer "You're much less stupid than other journalists I've talked to." Was he joking? Yes. But is that what you and I might call "polite?"

Wyrex's skin got the briefest of mentions in a paper 9 years ago is probably what you meant to say (and then Manning did paper likening it to turtle skin, suggesting even that it WAS turtle skin, a conclusion that Bell ignored).

And yes, that's kinda my point - don't you think a description of the Lane material in addition to an overview of other ceratopsid skin impressions (if others exist aside from those I've already mentioned) would make for a good paper? Or perhaps doing the chemical analysis like Manning did with the Dakota mummy? Or even investigating Duane Naish's tantalizing but perhaps far-fetched SIGIL idea? These are all ideas worth pursuing, but no, please, by all means, go back to publishing on scraps that that will inevitably be sunk into older genera or are otherwise non-diagnostic.

>>2470049
For clarifications sake - yes, of course material representative of a new species should be described, even if its a tooth. But there is no substitute for a technical description of an exceptional specimen. If a complete Argentinosaurus were found, I'd like to see a description there too, even though we've plenty of lognkosaurian material to go around.

>>2470037
>would like to see an almost complete Triceratops specimen that also preserves a good portion of the animal's soft tissue technically described some day
Lots of people would, but the skin would get very little mention because we have no formal structure for describing skin. It's not generally diagnostic so it gets a photo and a caption.
>here's this quote from Mark Witton
with all due respect to Dr. Witton we don't formally describe skin for the reasons I already mentioned. Perhaps you can fix this by inventing a structured system for describing skin and using it diagnostically. Until that happens it's rarely mentioned because it's rarely diagnostic. Even when it is included in the diagnosis- e.g. Madsen's diagnosis of Ceratosaurus with osteoderms- the skin gets nothing more than a picture and a caption because by itself it isn't diagnostic.
>Okay, now I know not to take you seriously
I never told you to.
>Clearly you've no real idea what you're talking about
By "polite" I mean not inclined to make kindhearted newbs feel like morons. He certainly can be crass, but I've never known him to be mean, particularly to students and fans.
>don't you think a description of the Lane material in addition to an overview of other ceratopsid skin impressions (if others exist aside from those I've already mentioned) would make for a good paper?
no. It would consist of 10 or 15 great photographs, a paragraph of text that ultimately says it's exactly like all the other trike and dinosaur skin that has been published, and a terrible impact factor.
>These are all ideas worth pursuing
absolutely, and like I said that's the only way the specimen is going to get described. it would have to be a study of something other than just that specimen.
>>2470054
>If a complete Argentinosaurus were found, I'd like to see a description there too,
If new bones are found they'll certainly be described. Otherwise no point in describing something that's already been published.

>>2470049
>>2470132
>a terrible impact factor.
This will likely be the fate of Bell's paper as well.

because it wasn't written in response to any scientific work- no paleontologist has ever published work claiming that Tyrannosaurus had feathers afaik, that paper simply doesn't exist.

He wrote for public consumption to counter ideas circulating on places like youtube and deviantart and 4chan. And while there are certainly paleontologists that both agree and disagree with his conclusions, there's not enough evidence on hand to refute it and nobody working in the rarified field of Tyrannosaurus feathers anyways.

So his paper, while extraordinarily relevant to the public discussion, is pretty much entirely irrelevant to science. We've known of the scaled impressions for years, this isn't new ground he's covering. And very few scientists will ever find themselves in a position to cite his work. He wrote it for Trey, and Trey's not a scientist.

>>2470037
>And then you started associating me with a lot of fairly stupid positions that some people in academia actually hold (e.g. Horner)
you give yourself away with your mistaken idea that skin can be formally described aside from a photograph and a location.

this is a newb's error, but not one most people on /an/ are educated enough to make.

skin is closer to an ichnofossil than a body fossil. Yes, it's technically a body fossil, but just like most ichnotaxa it isn't reliably diagnostic 99% of the time. There is no format for describing it formally, nor is there a reason to as yet.

this is where we're at in paleo at the moment, and when you pretend otherwise you ID yourself like you were wearing blaze orange and sounding a siren.

>>2470049
>Wyrex's skin got the briefest of mentions in a paper 9 years ago is probably what you meant to say
what I mean to say is if you think Bell's description of the Wyrex skin was somehow more formal, more useful, or more complete than Larson's you've utterly missed the point of science.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Larson's brief claim to have Tyrannosaurus skin with scales from all over the body is sufficient evidence that the animal was scaled. There is no arguing it and no reason to expound on it. Certainly no reason to write a full paper about it.

the truth stands on its own merits, without formality.

>>2470054
and I apologize for writing a book and still being a condescending dick.

you covered a lot of ground in your posts and all of it is interesting to me. Particularly how your views have evolved by working in science, and also by what misconceptions you cling to.

Scientists often cling to misconceptions.

File: 1484400230341.jpg (60KB, 324x354px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 324x354px

>mfw this abortion of a thread miraculously turns in to a serious discussion

File: 14389.jpg (48KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 453x604px

>>2470164
serious discussion is published in peer-refereed journals of science.

what you have here is technical discussion. That can happen anywhere.

>>2470169
lmao shut up ners.

>>2470169
These threads usually turn in to a shitposting extravaganza, just read the OP.
Call it whatever you want, except typical for this board.

File: 1391023666163.gif (787KB, 800x1148px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 800x1148px

>>2470176
the feather vs. scale people are exactly the same 2 people as are having a technical discussion itt.

the only difference is depth of understanding. In this case supposed featherfag hit on a subject to which he isn't personally invested and supposed scalefag responded accordingly.

we could have these discussions every day except /an/ has to reduce it to scale vs. feather trolling every time. Real paleontologists are both feather AND scale fags.

>>2470140
>no. It would consist of 10 or 15 great photographs, a paragraph of text that ultimately says it's exactly like all the other trike and dinosaur skin that has been published, and a terrible impact factor.

As I said, I'd be more than happy to see this dearth of ceratopsid skin material you believe is out there. All I've seen published is the Centrosaurus skin patch.

>Perhaps you can fix this by inventing a structured system for describing skin and using it diagnostically.

It's already been done for the osteoderm pattern in nodosaurids, though we really need an overview of all the integument seen in archosauria and then go down clade by clade.

>By "polite" I mean not inclined to make kindhearted newbs feel like morons. He certainly can be crass, but I've never known him to be mean, particularly to students and fans.

If he thought I were misplaced, he would have called me out on it. He looked on me with scorn and disdain for having been a geology major, and openly teased me for it. If my question had been misplaced, he would have said so. As you said, he can be crass, and would have seized on the chance to poke fun at a Billy.

>no. It would consist of 10 or 15 great photographs, a paragraph of text that ultimately says it's exactly like all the other trike and dinosaur skin that has been published, and a terrible impact factor

Don't get me started on impact factors (as if THAT'S the metric we should be using). That being said, the extent of the skin impressions, along with comparison across taxa, along with testing a hypothesis for what the nipple structures are could go at least some distance. Even if its only a handful of pages, I am content with that. Of course, a monograph on Triceratops would be nice as well, considering the amount of specimens, controversy over ontogeny, stance, and, of course, how the rib cage really looked, but academics aren't really in the business of producing monographs anymore.

>>2470262
not dearth, abundance. Wrong word!

>>2470134
>So his paper, while extraordinarily relevant to the public discussion, is pretty much entirely irrelevant to science.
Is there anything particularly wrong with that? So what if its more interesting to aficionados and a pop audience. If it weren't for people like that, our field would be much smaller and less interesting than it is today. Perhaps we'd do well to take ourselves less seriously.

>>2470132
>>2470140
>absolutely, and like I said that's the only way the specimen is going to get described. it would have to be a study of something other than just that specimen.
>you give yourself away with your mistaken idea that skin can be formally described aside from a photograph and a location.
If implied anywhere that I thought that it was improper to describe the skin as a supplement to another paper, I didn't mean to. But even if it was only a short paper with a description and photos, I'd be happy in the interim until the skin saw some use. As I said, it doesn't need to be soon, just soon enough. And, of course, papers are published on unexceptional specimens from time to time (remember the Torosaurus paper I linked?). An exceptional specimen (almost 100% complete with skin) might be worth a shot. I certainly wouldn't be offended by a short paper covering the skin plus a description of the locale and its geology.

And I was more referring to your other criticisms - that a fossil doesn't count if its not published, or that all fossils are scientifically valuable - positions that I most certainly do not hold, and are very ignorant of the reality.

File: nodobb.jpg (24KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x240px

>>2470140
>skin is closer to an ichnofossil than a body fossil. Yes, it's technically a body fossil, but just like most ichnotaxa it isn't reliably diagnostic 99% of the time. There is no format for describing it formally, nor is there a reason to as yet.

I think Osborn laid out a pretty good format, and we might do well to take lessons from herpetologists (who use scales diagnostically all the time, albeit working with a much larger dataset). And I think, given all the interesting work that has been done with feathers, there are plenty of avenues to explore with skin. We just might need to use more imaginative ways of exploring it, and look at wider breadth of extant animals to get a better idea of what precisely non-fuzzy integument actually was in dinosaurs and its potential uses (or lack thereof).

>>2470145
>what I mean to say is if you think Bell's description of the Wyrex skin was somehow more formal, more useful, or more complete than Larson's you've utterly missed the point of science.

I don't - as you said, Bell's work was on Tyrannosaurids as a whole. Larson was the one encouraging Bell to write the paper, and he thought his own description too short. Make of that what you will. He actually felt perturbed Bell didn't go more into how the Rex skin resembles bird reticulae (personal anecdote, so take it for what you will).

>the truth stands on its own merits, without formality.
Well said. On this we stand in complete agreement.

>>2470151
and I apologize for writing a book and still being a condescending dick.
you covered a lot of ground in your posts and all of it is interesting to me.

Eh, you're fine. It was an interesting discussion and you covered a lot of ground as well - I can tell you actually work in the field and value that work.

>Scientists often cling to misconceptions
If this is supposed to be a backhanded compliment, I'll take it.

>>2470262
>It's already been done for the osteoderm pattern in nodosaurids
yes, that's one of the rare cases where skin patterns may be useful. Still only generically diagnostic at best.

I only mention impact factor as a metric of utility in science. Not a great metric since a lot of useless stuff gets cited anyways, but it's an effective tool when things AREN'T getting cited.

and I'd guess Bell's latest isn't going to get cited.

anyways, I'm headed out to go camping for a couple days. Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed reading your thoughts.

File: 5881a1d05507b89b2b7aff75d476998d.jpg (171KB, 1000x630px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1000x630px

>>2469202
>Cope and Dollo
Bitch please