Sapient Dinosaurs

I also like the idea of them quietly evolving in the Americas with they being unaware of us and we of them until good ol' Columbus comes along and shit goes down. I'm also fond of them having a Mayan or Aztec flavor, but I wonder if that's too obvious?

>>44455286
How about basicaly having the Native Americans and the dinosaurs actually co-existing? It'd just be interesting to write about the two interacting. Though maybe have some regions where they are the only sapient species.

File: Raptor Assassin.jpg (517KB, 1362x637px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 1362x637px

Don't have anything to add other than a picture related to the topic.

>>44455059
The whole "dinosaurs with feathers" thing is so stupid. Why do people keep doing this.

>>44455600
I have to wonder if Paleolithic humans would get a foothold in the Americas at all if it's already inhabited by an intelligent species? The small groups of humans coming across would be a bit outnumbered and might nope the fuck outta there when they encounter smart bird-monsters.

File: Clothing_of_the_Dinosauroids_2_by_povorot.jpg (101KB, 800x864px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x864px

>>44456424

>>44455059
Sapient has no biological definition. It literally only means "Humans are special because"

Sentient is more than sufficient.

File: Neolithic_Eurasian_Steppe_by_povorot.jpg (76KB, 600x501px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x501px

>>44456443

>>44456429
...Because they had them? Have you even looked at fossils? Or are just trying to troll?

>>44456429
>guaranteed replies.corel

>>44456424
>>44456443

So do they use their little wing arms at all or do they knit with their beaks as well. I'd be interested in seeing how they were able to cast their bronze knives as well because I'm having a hard to seeing it with my mind's eye.

>>44456452
I'm never sure which word to use; the definitions are a little...vague, and so many use them interchangeably.

>>44456530

Sentient is the only one to ever use. Sapient is just for the HFY crowd.

Sentient means self-aware. Sapient just means "wise"

>>44456515
Me too. I really wonder how they do it unless evolution finally let them rotate their wrists?

File: Elder gods chicken.jpg (99KB, 1739x731px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1739x731px

>>44456429
Because have fossil evidence they had feathers. This coincides with guesses as to how dinosaur biology and behavior would've worked, based off of current analogue beings (birds, reptiles). It's not perfect, but when it matches up with the fossil record, it's pretty hard to deny the existence of feathers on dinosaurs.

>>44456573
Dude. how was it not obvious he was trolling and why do you care if someone is wrong on the internet?

>>44455674
I like the pics man, getting me inspired to draw some of own actually. Who drew these? They're nice.

>>44455059
I always liked the idea of the parasaurolophus being the root of 'dinosaur people'. They've got a fairly social nature and likely had a complex system of vocal calls. They also had small front limbs that could more easily become grasping hands.

With a bit of extra progression, they could slowly gain more upright posture and more developed limbs.

The main issue is surviving extinction and developing sapience. Surviving extinction is especially difficult for large herbivores, and I've heard it said that being at least somewhat carnivorous is necessary for developing a large intellect.

Still, I feel as though they're fairly distinct as far as dinosaurs go, and could see them developing alongside humans rather nicely.

>>44456573
I can support the dino feather thing to a certain point, but god does it still bother me when I see it on T rex and other large predators.

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

367KB, 2000x1251px

>>44459515
The best is a small amount of feathers along the head or back. Gives them a small splash of color without turning them into fluffy chickens.

>>44456573
A large predator like the T-rex would probably be featherless thanks to gigantothermy. They would already have a hard time releasing heat, why would they have effectively one of the best heat insulation to add onto that? Additionally, T-rex skin imprints have been found and they are scaled, no signs of feathers. It is only hypothesized they had feathers because their genetic cousins is thought to have feathers. I mean, at best, they might have a crest or a mane like a lion to deter would be rivals.

>>44460968
Most theories go with the chicks having feathers, but losing them upon adulthood. They might retain some feathers for display, but they're mostly bald.

>>44459190
Maybe thiers a dwarf variety out there somewhere? Tethyshadros insularis is a dwarf species of hadrosaur; its about the size of a modern-day cow. It doesn't have the fancy crest, but it's at least in the same family.

>>44459190
>and I've heard it said that being at least somewhat carnivorous is necessary for developing a large intellect.

Elephants prove this wrong.

>>44461620
Point. It seems the common denominator for intelligence is being social.

>>44459515
>>44460968
Didn't they find a full grown t-rex fossil with an imprint of feathers going down its back?

>>44444444
I have to find out.

>>44456454
The baby is so cute!

These are really cool. >>44456443 makes me want to see them in a modern military setting.

>>44461620
>g the root of 'dinosaur people'. They've got a fairly social nature and likely had a complex system of vocal calls. They also had small front limbs that could more easily become grasping hands.
They are pretty big though... larger animals are more energy efficient.

>>44462007
I quoted the wrong thing.

I meant to quote >>44461620.

>>44455059
Just go with "because it's cool" and try not to worry too much about it.

The biggest problem you're facing is that basically nothing that looks like a dinosaur really needs to evolve intelligence to the point of tool making and society building.

Not every species can evolve high intelligence just because you leave it alone, a lot of the dinos were specialized to the point where a big enough change in their surroundings that intelligence becomes more important than biting shit is going to kill them off, not let the smart members of a given species to have more offspring than the dumb ones.

Basically you need a species that already relied on a social structure like a pack for survival, and who's diet involved things that tool-use like poking termite holes with a stick might be useful for, rather than just being faster or having bigger teeth.

>Humans projecting clothing onto animals with furs and feathers
Stop doing this shit god damn.

>>44462039
And you probably need something like a tree-climbing race too, since otherwise there's no reason why they'd already have the wrist bones and manual dexterity that would later on let them utilize their intelligence for tool use.

A big hurdle with making up evolutionary paths for fantasy species is figuring out how each of the parts that worked together to shape their evolution were useful on their own, since it's perfectly reasonable that a species might kind of hit a wall when it comes to intelligence because they have hit the limit of how much intelligence their body shapes let them actually take advantage of. Elephants have a pretty delicate manipulator limb, their trunk, apes had hands they used for climbing and picking lice (which was a major thing for their social bonding) and dolphins are in water, which lets them engage in far more signalling and play-behavior than a similarly intelligent land-locked species would.

>>44461923
No. No they didn't.
Where'd you even get that from?
You might be thinking of Yutyrannus wich is thought to be related to T.rex, but even that is disputed.

>>44462076
Heat-regulation through water evaporation (sweating) is a very efficient way to cool down your body, which is huge since it lets you avoid heat stroke and generally overheating your brain.

Any species approaching human levels of intelligence needs an efficient way to cool down, so it makes sense that they'd eventually lose their fur or feathers.

Having both furs/feathers AND clothes is pants on head retarded though, totally agree.

>>44460968
They have found fairly large feathered dinos though. Yutyrannus Huali was 30 feet and 3000 pounds and evidence shows that it retained "feathers" (more like down) through adulthood.

Better heat retention in colder climates than the T-Rex lived in could be one reason for why a large dinosaur would have feathers, and once you have feathers in place you open up for all kinds of shenanigans with mutations causing brighter colours or differend shapes and sexual selection kicking in.

T-Rex seems did in all likelihood not have feathers to any significant extent though, just like you said.

>>44456548
From Wikipedia:
>Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). [...] The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

I think this is a term whose definition is probably in transition due to it's prevalent use among science fiction writers to indicate advanced intelligence, but strictly speaking, "sapient" is more appropriate for the kind of thing we're talking about than "sentient" is. Sapience is about wisdom and analytical thought, while sentience gets tangled up in feeeeliiings (though even that aspect of the term is a bit flawed, as I think the Cartesian concept of animals as unfeeling machines is out of vogue).

But being a big sci-fi fan, "sentient" is the term I'm used to, and "sapient" seems a bit forced to me, so I often end up using the former for aesthetic reasons.

>>44462076
Depends on the clothing.

Functional shit, such as things with lots of pouches, or protective garments? Yeah that makes sense.

Anything else? Ridiculous.

>>44462076
Eh, pouches and straps do work. You only have 2 hands, wouldn't it be nice to keep them free while you walk?

>>44456454
>>44456443
>>44456424
>>44455674
>>44455059
These are cool and all, but I wish he had made the heads a bit bigger to show their capacity. Right now, they look like herons.

>>44455059
No rotating wrists does mean they really can't use the basic hunting tools that we did. That also probably limits their growth as a sapient species, unless they start rotating things in their hands with their beaks, or even put a higher importance of pairs so that one or the other can do rotation of things. Writing might be done by the feet, depending how good at grasping they are, or maybe scratching into a mud tablet or leaf. The ankles can rotate for almost all species.

>>44463620
They could do a stint in the trees; climbing can be a useful adaptation in the dense forests that grew once the earth recovered, scrambling up the bark to get at tasty fruit. Troodons were omnivorous and could likely take advantage of most any food source. All that aborial living to take advantage of a new, rich food source might force them to evolve better forelimbs.

In All Tomorrow's there is a race of evolved raptors that turn their lobotomized human masters into pack animals and only realize it thousands of years later by looking at the course of their evolution.

File: female_aztec_feathered_kobold_spirit_shaman_by_thebrave-d7f0f23.png (119KB, 1024x724px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x724px

More of a fantasy bent but it always stuck with me

>>44462283
Yutyrannus lived in a fairly cold climate, just like you said. So a larger dino with feathers does make sense, just so long as it was for heat retention.

>>44463812
Yeah and by that point they had been learning from archeological release and considered themselves culturally human, sadly they were most likely killed off by the gavitol

File: 1402796418224.jpg (352KB, 1300x1029px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1300x1029px

>>44456573

>>44460968

>and they are scaled

Okay this continues to bug the shit out of me:

No. They did not "have scales". They could be bald yes and they could have unique patterns on their skin but T-Rex did not have the structure to actually grow reptile like scales on their body. They could ONLY grow feather like structures which means the closest thing to "scales" we might see on a t-rex would maybe be the thicker sections of places like a Bird's feet.

No dinosaurs had straight up reptile scales as far as we were aware. They certainly had bony protrusions but not scales.

>>44463778
Protogliders then? Or perhaps their gliding feathers have atrophied.

>>44463852
Dr. Saurus?

>>44463934
You do know scales are just hardened skin, right? A gila monster's skin is still scaled, though not on the classic sense of the word.

>>44463839
Also, they're significantly smaller than the T-rex, 3000lbs(1.5tons) vs the T-rex's 14,000lbs (7tons).

>>44456429
Because, unlike popular opinion, they aren't mythological creatures and all evidence suggests they had primitive feathers.

People need to get over it, you want them to be something they aren't.

>>44465109
Fuck reality, why would I be on /tg/ if I wanted reality

>>44465830
>>44465819
>>44465805

please forgive my autism/persnickety horseshit, and these illustrations look really great, but i'm still not convinced that these things have the proper anatomy to make and grip advanced tools like stone knives, etc. many of these guys look like they've become domesticated working animals. this one drawing with the dino-atlatl has better posture for an intelligent life-form, but i think that the following one with the fist-making and stone gripping is a stretch. we need to drop the idea that these arms could've become wings and instead try to find an evolutionary niche where these animals would've needed hands to grip things other than the eventuality of tools. tree-dwelling seems to be okay because we can look at things like the hoatzin, but considering that the reason for the evolution of wings in small theropods like dromaeosaurs is still a debated topic, i just don't know how to rationalize the idea.

>>44465109
I really hope we clone dinosaurs one.day. Just to know for sure. Hell, clone everything extinct. Just once. For science.

>>44456530
It's not vague. A sentient creature just feels and perceives as an individual. Most things are sentient, or else they would behave like a runaway vacuuming robot. Sapience is higher reasoning, problem solving, "wisdom". This is a human thing. And a chimp thing, and a dolphin thing, and a crow thing, and maybe a dog thing.

People just use the words interchangeably cause people don't give a shit what words actually mean. Like literally.

File: DeathCrowTyrannosaurusRex.jpg (109KB, 1600x718px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1600x718px

>>44459515
You don't like nightmare chickens?

>>44466289
Why not use the gripping talons of a bird of prey for grabing with feet while the forearms become wings

>>44466817
Only if said nightmare chickens live far north where they would NEED the insulation; otherwise they would easily overheat. But that there art is slick man.

>>44459570
Yeah. Especially since the adolescent would have some.

People hear feathers and immediately go to full coverage, though.

>>44468804
many modern birds are pretty sparse with their coverage even, Ostriches, Vultures etc.

>>44468914
I wouldn't call either of your examples to be "sparse with coverage", since most of a vulture's body is covered with them and an ostrich is as well beyond legs and neck/head.

File: 1447547415888.jpg (238KB, 2390x450px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 2390x450px

>>44465830
>>44465819
>>44465805
>>44456454
>>44456443
>>44456424

Love these SO much. Have some issues but other that those these are amazing. Would love more. Also they would evolve like people did. Larger brain case, longer arms and more articulate hands with opposable thumbs. Might get more upright but that is debatable. 100/10 would use for all settings and writefaggery.

Do you know the artist and if he would take detailed commissions?

>>44469484
Povorot's the artist, no idea about commissions.

>>44466596
Unfortunately, DNA breaks down naturally over time. It's hard enough getting samples that are a few thousand years old to be usable, let alone >65 million.

Our best bet is engineering them backwards from modern birds.

>>44469689
even then the result would be remarkably dinosaur-like new species, not legit replicas of dinosaurs from the past.
Which I'm not too unhappy about, because were we able to have the technology to make a dinosaur-like animal at dinosaur-like size that could survive for more than a couple years healthy, then I'd say we'd have the technology to make even cooler animals, like dinosaurs with rocket boosters.

>>44469792
so in a sense Wu is right, we'll never have "real" dinosaurs

>>44470107
yeh, not without a time machine or unquestionable proof that a certain specific sequence of genes is in fact identical to that of a prehistoric animal. In the case of the latter, the instance comes up again of "if we had the technology to put that to use, we'd have the technology to do better things than that"

>>44470236
well I'm in favor of re making something close to them still

>>44455286
I once wrote up a setting just like that, where the sapient dromeosaurs were basically just TES' Argonians except they had raptor feet and the women didn't have lizardtits.

>>44470381
Weren't scientists trying to reverse-genetic-engineer a mammoth some time ago?

>>44471114
yeah, but partly because the Mammoth's extinction has left a legitimate ecological void in amaerica

>>44471170
Say what now?

>>44471179

Ice age mega fauna die-off imbalanced North America's ecology.

No elephants, no lions, no horses(fixed that sort of, thanks Spain)

File: jinfengopteryx_color3.jpg (115KB, 864x528px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 864x528px

Instead of Troodon, how about Jinfengopteryx? It's quite a bit smaller-smaller than a chicken-so it's more likely to survive K/T and it's omnivorous, so it can eat a wider variety of foods; both of which are good adaptations to survive post-Apocalypse.

>>44473626
Yeah, but it lived in the early Cretaceous, millions of years before K/T. Although, every place I looked never said exactly WHEN it went extinct, so maybe we could fudge it...

>>44458957
That middle one doesn't even have any arms.

File: brontosapiens_by_nemo_ramjet.png (210KB, 1680x445px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1680x445px

>>44476550
Who needs hands?

>>44476610
What about hands with no arms?

>>44476715
what about arms with no hands?

>>44476715
Rayman?

>>44476550
That's because the middle one is an evolved Australian/New Zealand Parrot that uses its talons for toolmaking.

>>44463848
I would run like fuck from that thing.

>>44477830
My uncle has those.

>>44478226

>Awkward_silence.mp3

>>44455059
Just use reality. What do you think crows are?

>>44479145
dogs at best

>>44481265
They've got problem solving capabilities.

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

>>44455059
Oh, the human is raising it's knee

>>44462076

You know that people wear clothing for tons of reasons other than protection of the elements and heat regulation, right?

>>44455059
The bulge of that human

>>44462700
>Functional shit, such as things with lots of pouches, or protective garments? Yeah that makes sense.

People also wear clothes for religious purposes, ceremonial purposes, and just to plain look cool.

>>44481751
That is one based fukken burd. Rock on, Based Burd.

>>44481800
It was the basis for wearing it in the first place.

>>44481995
>It was the basis for wearing it in the first place.

There are plenty of examples of hunter gather societies and people who have never had contact with the outside world who nevertheless still wear loincloths, skirts, necklaces, bangles, piercings, headdresses, tattoos, masks, etc.

Not for protection/temperature regulation, but because of a variety of other reasons.

The idea that clothing can only (or did only) originate as a means of protecting you from heat/cold/rain/sand simply doesn't seem true.

>>44482077
Necklaces, bangles, piercings, tattoos, and masks aren't clothing, they're decoration. None of those cover the body, they're meant to accentuate. Clothing was originally so that we could survive in colder climate since we didn't have fur or large fat deposits. And possibly to curb our own sexual drives since we have no set time for heat.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/09/when-people-started-wearing-clothes/

Also, you're using modern humans for your analysis.

>>44482584

If you define "clothes" ONLY as articles that people wear for the utilitarian purposes of protecting themselves from the elements, then you're using a pretty specific definition that I don't think anyone really uses in day to day conversation.

>> Clothing was originally so that we could survive in colder climate since we didn't have fur or large fat deposits.

>>http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/09/when-people-started-wearing-clothes/

This one study concludes that people started wearing hide/textile based clothes regularly for protective reasons around 170k years ago.

It doesn't say that nobody ever wore anything and went around completely naked.

It doesn't say that people never wore anything else.

It doesn't say that people didn't use other materials for clothing- such as bark, grass, or beads.

It makes no mention of things like the irregular wearing of items on an irregular basis for hunting, ceremonies, or rituals.

None of the "clothes" that >>44462076 is complaining about seem to exist for the purposes of protecting their wearers from the elements.

Suggesting that only humans can wear stuff on their bodies and that the only reason humans would wear something on their bodies is to protect themselves from the elements, and that nothing could ever work any other way is the epitome of projecting.projection to a far greater degree.

>>Also, you're using modern humans for your analysis.

Modern humans that have not been influenced for who knows how many thousands of years, and as such, were allowed to develop outside the environment/influences of Eurasian peoples upon which our notions of "clothing" descend from- yes.

On a related note, which dinos does /tg/ think would lend well to domestication? I'm thinking some species of raptor would make a good dog-like hunting companion, but what would work best as a pack animal/mount, if any?

>>44483286
>>On a related note, which dinos does /tg/ think would lend well to domestication?

There's so many factors involved, it'd be hard to tell. Whatever it is needs to be docile enough, not eat too much, not wander too much, breed readily in captivity, be resistant enough to diseases in any given area, and meet a variety of other factors.


>>I'm thinking some species of raptor would make a good dog-like hunting companion, but what would work best as a pack animal/mount, if any?

Dromaeosaurs likely weren't *that* smart. They may have relatively large brains compared to other dinosaurs, but they're still relatively small compared to modern birds and mammals.

Jurassic Park really overhyped just how capable velociraptors were. They weren't some kind of super animal.

>>44483483
Domestication would require multiple generations, even assuming they were particularly bright breeds like Dromeosaurids and Troodontids, and again Most modern Birds are probably smarter then them, so about as trainable as a particularly dumb Crow or Parrot

>>44485779
>Domestication would require multiple generations, even assuming they were particularly bright breeds like Dromeosaurids and Troodontids

Domestication takes more than smarts. Cows aren't very smart, but we've done a much better job domesticating them than we have elephants.

>>and again Most modern Birds are probably smarter then them, so about as trainable as a particularly dumb Crow or Parrot

Even those are way ahead of most birds. There's nothing really to suggest dromaeosaurs were more intelligent than any random bird. And that's again assuming they have the temperament, breeding habits, resistances to disease, and other traits necessary to be domesticated. There's just too many unknown variables.

It's like trying to decide which dinosaurs would taste the best.

>>44485779
>so about as trainable as a particularly dumb Crow or Parrot
Isn't that still above the average housecat? Crows are pretty damn smart

>>44485904
>>44485920
hmmm, this is probably why reverse engineering a good approximation is still a better idea, just because even if it's not as close, DO we actually want it to be anywhere near a 1/1 replication?

>>44485920
I think he was assuming a best case senario

>>44483483
>>44485779
>>44485904
You've got to remember that there are varying types of intelligence as well. If Raptors were pack animals like is hypothesised, then they must have had a degree of social intelligence, which is what we'd be primarily looking for in a companion species.

>>44486343
It's for science; the more accurate the better

>>44486486
hmm, that said the most evidence we have is them eating in numbers, they may have been more like Coyotes, willing to share carrion, or perhapse simply prides or family groups

>>44486723
That is literally what social intelligence entails.

>>44486760
then who is the Alpha?

>>44486885
You know wolf packs in the wild are really just family groups. The alphas are the parents.

>>44486760
There doesn't necessarily need to be an alpha, but given that it's seen pretty much everywhere in the animal kingdom (solitary creatures excluded), then I'd probably go with The Biggest One. Same as usual, really. They're animals, not extra-dimensional monsters.

Being socially intelligent simply means that they're able to understand complex social relationships such as pecking orders, and that's just the lowest common denominator for social intelligence.

>>44486989
Oops, meant to link to >>44486885

>>44486486
>You've got to remember that there are varying types of intelligence as well. If Raptors were pack animals like is hypothesised, then they must have had a degree of social intelligence, which is what we'd be primarily looking for in a companion species.

Lots of birds live and travel in groups: chickens, ostriches, ducks, penguins. Doesn't make them particularly smart.

What do you call the front...manipulators? of a theropod dinosaur? Are they hands, paws, talons what? And I mean on the base animal, before it becomes an intelligent species.

>>44487183
I only ask, because trying to talk about how the front thingies might evolve to use tools is annoying without a proper term to call them.

>>44487120
True, but like I said, it's the lowest common denominator. If raptors were indeed highly intelligent, social creatures, then they'd be good candidates for selective breeding to increase their desirable traits.

>>44461923
No but they found T-rex tissue that was thick, leathery and scaly.

>>44487234
I've seen a lot of articles that refer to them as 'hand-like' or just 'hands'.

>>44487183
forelimbs

>>44488173
What's on the end of those forelimbs, specifically. The grabby bit.

>>44455059
I know I'm late for the party but:
>How would a species like Troodon survive the extinction event that killed off non-avian dinosaurs, marine reptiles, flying reptiles, and nearly every single animal over a few kilograms?
How about a fluke?
You don't really have to plot everything out minutely.
The right time in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world; it really will seem like stretch either way but for dinosaurs to survive, it already requires quite the suspension of disbelief.
Have them evolve an actual brain afterwards, to adapt to the extreme change in fauna, also, since you're already going to such lengths, have them also evolve physically, around the graspers, wrist, forearms, shoulders, chest and back, to facilitate at least some amount of believable tool creation and usage early on. Their technique, and how they make the creations their own, comes later. Using spears like we do is pretty much impossible without some kind of miracle but I love the thought of having them use a lot of sharpened rocks or bladed weapons aimed sweepingly at the legs, Achilles heel and femoral artery by way of spinning their whole body in a hit 'n run dance of death to make up for lack of proper arm motions. as such they wouldn't be frontline fightes and their methods would rely on guerrilla tactics or subterfuge. Also, blunderbusses light on recoil fired from a low position. Fighting with these guys would be a nightmare; small, fast and deathly at close range, you know exactly where they will strike you at and how, but the thought of it only makes it worse.
Anyway, this is pretty much baseless conjecture on my part but if I had to do this then this is how I would do it.

>>44489005
Yeah, I pretty much figured on them being unable to hurl spears or use bows; which is such an integral part of us humans being successful hunters. Being able to kill dangerous large prey from a distance results in fewer injuries.

Maybe they could take advantage of a hunting style that takes advantage of their speed? The hit-run tacit is good, but running prey into a pit trap or over a cliff could be good usages of their speed. They probably wouldn't go after large prey like we did-mammoths, bison, etc. We killed one large animal from a distance to feed us, while Dinosaurids could try to kill multiple small prey like deer by driving them into nets, traps, or off cliffs.What do you think?

>>44489005
The hit-run tatics and the low stabbing and sweeping would make them pretty fucking nightmarish to fight, especially if they're fast. I wonder if the need to create projectile weapons and the inability to use a bow would lead to them jumping right over the creation of the bow and developing the gun first?

>>44489245
Like I said
>as such they wouldn't be frontline fighters and their methods would rely on guerrilla tactics or subterfuge
But it is possible for them to take down a mammoth given this line of thought if they already understand the power of the Achilles heel.
Even then, if they group up and play it smart they can take one down by slowly bleeding it out using speed to their advantage or by learning poisons.
Like wolves staying back calling a beasts attention while another sneaks around for a back attack and such, it's very possible for them to do it given the fact they have tools at their disposal.
>>44489410
As I also pointed out.
>I wonder if the need to create projectile weapons and the inability to use a bow would lead to them jumping right over the creation of the bow and developing the gun first?
Also a possibility if they learn alchemy early on in their development of poisons, toxins and other poison related things for their roguish method of fighting, couple that with their need of good sharp weapons to actually cut through even the thickest hide being enough to also set them on a smithing track, makes it highly probable for them to do that, the only thing setting them back might be their hands for the small stuff like the trigger mechanisms but considering their physiology, a gun from them might not be a 1/1 replica of ours.

File: DSCF0063.jpg (56KB, 675x506px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 675x506px

>>44489410
Skane-pin crossbows are pretty fuckin simple, I've made a few. Crossbow master race. Also some of the pics on this thread show dinosauriod atlals. See;
>>44455674
And;
>>44465819

File: R0040 Crossbow Wooden_03_LRG.jpg (107KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 800x600px

>>44489621
And here is a picture of a much less crude one.

So... would sapient dinosaurs basically be giant biped crows?

>>44489567
>>44489621
>A group of 5 dinos spot a mammoth.
>Pointman fires a bolt laced with poison at it with the element of surprise.
>They give chase, allowing the poison to act faster.
>They surround it, two at the front, doing feign attacks to keep its attention on them while the three others slowly position themselves at the sides and back.
>They slowly and carefully cut at the legs in between shooting it with more bolts, it's already debilitated body makes it an easy quarrel.
Shit could work, lads.

File: 1450487113612.jpg (26KB, 445x260px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 445x260px

>>44489830
Also remember raptor like most predators are designed for very quick, but short bursts of speed. Unlike humans which are made for endurance hunting (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting). Being able to eat and drink will moveing like us when they learn to carry food and drink might help with that though.

No idea how this would affect stuff though.

>>44489933
Nice double digits.
But yeah, that's why they should start with poison, so as to not make chasing it take so long and actually work in their favor.
However, should meat from a poisoned animal be consumed? Does cooking it thoroughly remove the risk? Should they save poisons for when they are hunting big game for their other resources like fur, bone, fat, ivory etc and hunt smaller game with traps and ingenuity for meat?
Also are dinos coldblooded? Because if so they would need a lot of protection in mammoth territory.
Surviving the Ice Age would be hard without thick clothes if so. They could boil water and put it inside handmade bags from under their coats or even sew them directly into the coats to keep toasty in could temperatures; though they would have to stop periodically to make a fire and reheat the water during long treks, getting one bag damaged might mean death for them.

>>44490216
Nah, dino's were warm-blooded; like mammals or their even closer relative, birds. Not just the bird-like therapods like velociraptor, even the big sauropods like Brachiosaurus are.

It could be that they use a poison that kills mammels but leaves them unaffected.Birds, for instance, can eat poison ivy and pokeweed, both of which are toxic or downright poisonous to mammals (conversely, avocados are poisonous to birds) So they could use poison to weaken prey.

>>44489567
>Like wolves staying back calling a beasts attention while another sneaks around for a back attack and such, it's very possible for them to do it given the fact they have tools at their disposal.

Wolves and humans harass/chase their prey because we have pretty good endurance. Most other animals don't, and instead rely on the ambush and quick incapacitating kill because they just don't have the stamina to simply wound prey and run it down later.

So making your dinosapiens into ambush hunters could be an interesting twist. They can't rely as much on out-waiting their prey, so they have to catch/kill it quickly.

>>44492756
This lack of endurance and being ambush hunters would really make for a much different mode of warfare. Probably mean they would use guerilla tactics instead of the traditional method of 'line up and hack n slash each other until the other guy gives up' that most human world powers have used.

Attack trade caravans and supply wagons, lightning raids on villages for hostages; repeat ad nauseam until the other guy sues for peace.

>>44494548
>This lack of endurance and being ambush hunters would really make for a much different mode of warfare. Probably mean they would use guerilla tactics instead of the traditional method of 'line up and hack n slash each other until the other guy gives up' that most human world powers have used.

Well unless they have any kind of organized state, combat is going to be restricted to raiding and skirmishing as opposed to all out warfare anyway.

>>44494644
Even after having an organized state these guys wouldn't be able to run around hacking and slashing on a battlefield for hours at a time like humans can; they just don't have that kind of endurance.

>>44494726
>>44494644
they might make greater use of mounts once animal domestication is worked out

>>44494885
What would they ride?

>Brain supplies image of dinosaurs riding terror birds.

...Fuck, I have got to draw that.

>>44489005
This is what I've drawn up so far, taking into account your concerns and some other anon's suggestions.

A somewhat more erect posture, which brings their arms up and out so they don't have to bend their necks in half or hold their arms waaay out to see what they're doing. the arms are also longer and mostly unfeathered, a few long feathers on the elbow and upper arm is all that's left of the protowings their ancestors had. The wrist are able to rotate 180, just like a humans, and the third digit on the inside of the hand has moved back and to the side, becoming a thumb. They can hold even small objects and it's dexterous enough to make tools; however their hands are leathery and scaly like a birds feet are, so they don have quite the level of tactile sensation that we do.

Creatures with big brains also need a good way to regulate their temperature so they don't overheat and cook such a complex and delicate piece of machinery. Most animals pant, some sweat, but birds do neither and it's the same with this guy. Instead, he has a dewlap that he can pump blood into to cool off, just like an elephant does with their ears. It's also brightly colored in the males for display.

>>44495008
depends on what they train, and if it cant be ridden traditionally it can still pull a cart or chariot

File: dinosapian copy.jpg (216KB, 1799x1309px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1799x1309px

>>44495543
God damn it, forgot the picture.

>>44495553
Well, I don't think they could really ride anything with that big, protruding pubic bone they have, but I would love me some terror-bird chariots.

>>44495618
What if they invented sidecars for mounts? Or a mahout tent kind of deal?
Imagine three dinosapiens riding a horse, one on top on the mahout seat, and a dinosapien on each side of the horse.
Now imagine if they managed to tame mammoths/elephants. MOBILE WAR FORTRESS

File: Untitled-1.jpg (3MB, 3196x2270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3196x2270px

>>44495706
I like the way you think. On that note, If I was Columbus and this is what I saw on landfall, I'd just turn around and go home.

>>44496553
Columbus never actually stepped foot in the Americas proper until his third voyage I believe. Although if these dinosaurs could make boats capable of seafaring...

Oh man. Dinosaur Haida/Vikings, a terrifying prospect.

>>44496763
and thus what humans called "the Demon Wars" began

>>44496553
>>44496763
assuming they hale from north America all they'd have to do is travel south and be worshiped as emissaries of the Gods

>>44496802
>They were the unholy spawn of bird and dragon! They spoke in a foul demon tongue, had claws like knives and weapons that could fell a horse with one strike! Even their feet had claws that could crush a man's throat, and they move like lightning!

>God save us all...

>>44496950
>and the beasts they brought with them, Vast shaggy Elephants, birds that hunted like lions, the New World they hale from, if it not hell, is not ours to claim

>>44456452
I personally use "sapient" to indicate "capable of at least a certain degree of abstraction".

The mirror test is a decent indicator; not of a sense of self (anything that has a mind at all has that) but the ability to associate your "self" with something other than the viewpoint looking out from your body.