ITT: We pay our respect to dinosaurs
F
>>2005888
Noice trips
>>2005906
This is the correct answer.
>>2005906
>>2005919
Agreed.
>>2005792
So do we pay our respects by putting our hands out to the side awkwardly while flailing and clucking?
>>2005792
Did they all seriously just look like big birds?
>>2005950
>>2005950
Yes, big, retarded birds.
>>2005950
Yep, it's pretty much confirmed now that every single dino was feathered and bird-like.
>>2005986
>no parrot/Triceratops mount/bf/senator
>>2005986
Wish some of these bastards had lived to this day (non-avians)
>>2005986
Not quite. There have been some fossilized remains of bare skin on dinosaurs such as Triceratops. However they still could have some feathers. I think Trey the Explainer did a good job explaining which ones would have feathers
>>2006037
That looks like a cassowary
>>2005794
I came to post this, I'm glad someone took the initiative for me.
>>2005986
Stop shitposting with that same picture.
So, Ornithomimus was pretty much an ostrich with a tail and arms now. It even has wing-like arms and naked legs.
>>2006085
perhaps to the untrained eye.
but really it's pretty fucking different. I mean, look at that tail! or the beak, it has no beak. The shape of the entire skull is reptilian, lacking the enlarged brain of birds. Those hands won't be found on an ostrich. The neck is way too short. And those legs and trunk! this is clearly an animal lacking the avian pump. Also too many toes.
not really much like an ostrich at all.
>>2006090
S-Superficially anon...
Remember when dinosaurs used to be reptilian beast and not ranbow tocan Sam's? I get it, birds evolved from little raptors, but not every sign dinosaur has to look like it just got out of carnival in Rio de Janeiro
>>2006211
It's not our fault that the scientific evidence doesn't line up with your childhood.
>>2006211
the vast majority of dinosaurs didn't have feathers.
people are only interested in the ones that did have feathers though.
so there's a selection bias in art and public media. Most of the dinosaurs you'll see are drawn like birds. If you want the truth you have to dig deeper. Read some paleontology, a lot of it's free now. Most dinosaurs don't have feathers, but you're not going to see that on /an/ or reddit or facebook.
>>2006136
Just sayin after you've studied anatomy that looks as much like an ostrich as an elephant with feathers taped on it does.
>>2006214
Source?
PSA: coloring an oviraptor like a cassowary is not an original idea
>>2006259
I remember requesting this one. The artist used the coloration of a mantis shrimp he drew beforehand.
>>2006276
who was artist?
It looks suspiciously similar to pat bagley's work.
>>2006224
Dinosaurs never existed.
Their "fossils" were placed in the ground by satan to confuse the righteous.
>>2006285
I've always liked the argument that the bones are all fakes carved by evolutionists. That one's harder to refute.
it's not like there's a lot of creationists out finding new dinosaur bones in the rock that can testify to their authenticity.
even when they do dig up dinosaurs, it's pretty unlikely they have the education to identify the thing positively as a dinosaur. Creationist paleontologists are as rare as hen's teeth.
>>2006224
Most dinosaurs don't have flight feathers, you mean. What you should be saying is that most dinosaurs weren't covered head to toe in feathers, and that quite a few groups have proof of no feathers (hadrosaurs, sauropods), while others have proof of at least some.
>>2005906
>b-but birds are dinosaurs
No
>>2006550
But they are.
>>2005986
thats not true at all because birds came after dinosaurs. dinosaurs evolved from fish and lizards so they were covered in scales.
>>2006570
I like this one more than the original, to be honest
>>2006570
>>2006550
>>2006541
>Most dinosaurs don't have flight feathers, you mean.
no
>>2006822
But they don't. Show me proof of every single dinosaur that has been shown to have a proto-feather covering with flight feathers.
Can you guys recommend me good documentaries on marine reptiles/dinosaurs?
I've seen one on Mosasaur and Predator X (Pleosaurus Funkei?) and I enjoyed it
>>2007271
I don't really get your point.
the number of dinosaurs that are known to have feathers of any kind from direct evidence is about 24.
the number that can be inferred based on phylogenetic bracketing is a couple hundred.
there's about 3,000 species of named dinosaurs, the couple hundred we think had feathers isn't most dinosaurs no matter how you cut it.
Reese's Pieces Trex
Enough of this dino to bird shit I want some of our ancestors. Big ol reptiles that became mammals.
>>2007810
Grandpa Dimetrodon reporting in
>>2007822
Whoops forgot pic
>>2007822
I get that dimetrodon isn't a direct ancestor to mammals, but what pelycosaur comes closest?
Is walking with dinosaurs the most bullshit thing ever?
exaggeration everywhere
Liopleurodon 25 meters and 150 tons!?
were they on drugs or something?
>>2007923
some later species of cynodont probably
>>2007967
>Is walking with dinosaurs the most bullshit thing ever?
Yup. Icthyosaurs on the other hand, got fucking huge.
>>2008072
>pelycosaur
>cynodont
choose only one
>>2008196
I like how the mammal has a tail fan too.
Like everything in the cretaceous grew tail fans.
>>2008200
I think it's just supposed to be fluffy
>>2008187
Bullshit. Nothing egregious like what they pulled with Liopleurodon, instead the sensationalism and incorrect stuff is spread out more evenly. The biggest flub I can think of is the giant spider, which as it turned out during production didn't really exist, but they didn't have time to correct it. Also, their presentation of the evolutionary lineage is pretty questionable.
It doesn't really feel like Walking with Dinos or Beasts, though, more like what you'd expect an American paleo docu to be like.
>>2007967
>were they on drugs or something?
>implying they actually cared about accuracy
They just wanted to make a nice dino show and couldn't help themselves, so they went overboard with sensationalist speculation. In the books (one of which was ironically written by that Darren Naish guy), they did try to explain that there were these fossil fragments which totally belonged to some huge as fuck beastie because, like, what else could it have been, but they don't really offer any genuine evidence.
AFAIK, their consultants said the maximum size estimate they had for Liopleurodon was 20 m, then they added a bonus 5 m for television's sake.
>>2008200
To be fair, plenty of small mammals have a tail tuffs. Jirds, jerboas, gerbils, springhares, cloud rats, gliding mammals, bilbys, etc.
Said mammal in question is probably based off the early mammals, which were pretty shrewy.
>>2008974
Why aren't there any more prehistoric mammal documentaries?
>>2009256
paleontologists don't use English names or conventions.
so he's right, you're wrong, and all is perfectly normal on /an/.
>>2009268
no need to apologize.
I don't expect anyone here to speak my language but it's always a pleasant surprise when someone does.
>>2009135
Dinosaurs are where the money is. The guys who made WWD originally wanted to do a mammal documentary too, but the BBC forced them to make one about dinosaurs instead.
>>2009274
Mesozoic mammals are remarkably conserved and homogeneous. They're evolutionarily more relevant to humans than dinosaurs are, but overall they're pretty fucking boring. Also all we usually find is tiny random jaw bones.
feathers apart, is jurassic park t. rex anatomically correct? I always had the feeling that they made her bigger than she was supposed to be; even the jaw felt somehow bigger.
>>2009373
Broken hands, shitty movement based eyesight, tail is too bendy, too fast in general, and just a little bit too big.
That's off the bat.
>>2009378
it was still beautiful anon, theatrically speaking
i was moved when i saw that as a child. for us 80s/90s kids jurassic park was our "star wars" moment
>>2009378
>tail is too bendy
I love it when people learn something about raptors and think it applies to all theropods.
>>2009385
Considering that they're a part of Tetanurae, most theropods did have relatively stiff tails.
>>2009382
It sure was beautiful. More beautiful than the Walking with Dinosaurs one. That frog faced fucker was ugly.
>>2009401
>most theropods did have relatively stiff tails.
kek
you might want to look into that some.
start with the terms, "ossified tendon," and "zyogapophyses."
then compare and contrast among theropods.
or even among tetanurans if you want to pretend that matters.
>>2009416
>zyogapophyses
zygapophyses
it's a bitch to spell.
>>2009416
Well don't I feel silly. Sorry anon.
>>2009429
no worries.
what happened is the taxon was initially named for the maniraptorans that had stiffened tails and then in later years people tossed a lot of other supposedly related dinosaurs in that don't have the tail rods.
By now most tetanurans don't have stiffened tails, and in fact there's good reason to doubt a lot of them are actually tetanurans at all. It's probably what we call a wastebasket taxon. People toss in whatever they can't classify.
>>2006293
The problem with that is that a lot of times it's not scientists that discover the fossils. Sometimes a person/crew will be digging, come across something interesting, make some phone calls, and all of a sudden it's an excavation site.
Good luck bringing in the fake bones while the people who own/work on the land are watching.
>>2009483
I think the way the story goes, those bones are actually nephilim and the evilutionists lie and say they're evil evilution animals like dinosaurs.
Or maybe they're elephant bones from all the elephants killed in Noah's flood. One or the other. They might be unicorns, I think the bible mentions those too.
>>2009571
you read my mind. I skipped that one because I'm not sure creationists actually read the bible.
I was just off reading you and vosh in the spider thread. It's a pleasure to see a couple experts talking shop.
>>2007801
I'm having fun imagining the noises they're making.
Like they're screaming "SEX! SEX SEX SEX!" at the top of their dinosaur lungs.
>>2007801
Where the fuck is this?
>>2009961
Jurassic Museum of Asturias in Spain.
>>2010160
>allosaurus_fragilis
the height of the lacrimal horns and nasal rugosity indicate Allosaurus "jimmadseni."
RIP all the animals who died
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Sdc02ON5s
>>2009268
>bugguy is wrong, gets salty
Just another day on /an/
>>2010246
Where is the frill?
>>2009280
mesozoic mammals are fucking boring but cenozoic is where it's at
fucking litopterns and chalicotheres and brontotheres and marsupials and whatnot maan
>>2009268
Except almost everything you argue is basic jargon.
Of course that shit that doesn't matter exclusively when you're wrong but is very important at all other times, right?
>>2005792
"Argh, you darn kids! Get off my dirt!"
>>2005950
No, most were of medium and small size.
>>2005896
It always bothers me when dinosaurs are given hands like bird feet, wouldn't the fingers also be feathered? And even if bare they surely wouldn't have the yellow banded scales birds developed on the feet?
What do the scientists say?
>>2006227
>after you've studied anatomy struthiomimus doesn't look like an ostrich
>>2010586
scientists don't really know.
we guess based on analogy.
it's possible for birds feet to be feathered. Presumably the reason they aren't is because they aren't heavily vascularized and don't benefit much from insulation.
if this is the reason, you'd just need to ask if the hands were any more vascularized than the legs, e.g., would a lack of feathers on the hands result in dangerous heat loss?
the answer would appear to be no, the hands are more gracile than the feet and probably had less blood flow. Feathery insulation isn't particularly likely on the hands. (unless the hypothetical hand feathers were being used for display or flight, unlikely options since if they existed they clearly weren't anchored in bone.)
if they were scaled probably would depend on how much time the animal spent using them. Hands that saw a lot of use would presumably be scaled.
>>2010512
>almost everything you argue is basic jargon
a really good point.
As jargon goes, "nociception" is at least as obscure as "paroccipital process of the exoccipital-opisthotic."
The only real difference is that /an/ doesn't care if you explain archosaurian osteological landmarks but will throw a 350-post shit-fit every time you explain that ethology has a word that exists solely to deny most animals are capable of pain and suffering.
>>2010721
>>2010246
Let's make an accurate dilophosaurus and give him broken hands.
>>2011017
didn't it turn out that oviraptors did not rapture ovi?
>>2011019
The first fossil found was actually an oviraptor incubating its nest. But everybody at the moment thought they just left their eggs unantended like most reptiles do, so it should have been stealing them.
>>2011017
>snibeti snab :DDD
i like big birds
>>2006090
>no beak
It had a beak. Ornithomimosaurs as a group are notable for their toothless jaws. Not the same shape as an ostrich beak, mind you, but more than passable as a bird.
>reptilian skull
Da fuck? I can agree on a smaller braincage, but there's no "reptilian" head shape. Sauropsids as a group had very diverse skulls.
>hands
Covered in feathers in life. Pic related
>The neck is way too short
Shitty artist
>lacking the avian plump
How do you know?
>>2007589
ALL dinosaurs can be inferred to have at least basic feathers, since Kulindadromeus - about as far from birds as you can get - had fairly derived feathers.
>>2011008
wot?
>>2012229
Kulindadromeus really allows us to infer that feathering is basal to dinosauria, not that all dinosaurs had basic feathers. It's totally possible that some, or even many, lineages could've lost those as time went on.
This is in addition to a few species having known skin impressions. Hadrosaurs apparently had scales, as did a few theropods like Carnotaurus (Which we apparently have a pretty large amount of skin impressions of, I guess?).
Even Tyrannosaurus itself has some skin impressions known, and they show that it had at least some areas of its body that were scaled. Off the top of my head, I'm recalling that we have impressions coming from the legs, feet, and tail. That's not to say that it didn't have any feathers, of course. Kulindadromeus had them and still lacked them on those same areas, and many of T. rex's earlier relatives were definitely covered in some sort of protofeather.
>>2012229
>>2012246
only if Kulindadromeus feathers are homologous to theropod feathers.
even if we pretend they are, there's far more dinosaurs known to lack feathers than to have them.
scientists don't play that stupid, "well it might have been feathered on the parts we haven't found yet" game. Statistically if you find a skin impression there's something like a 99% chance the animal completely lacked feathers.
>>2012229
>ALL dinosaurs can be inferred to have at least basic feathers
almost all dinosaurs are known to lack feathers.
>http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/03/most-dinosaurs-had-scales-not-feathers-fossil-analysis-concludes
>>2012226
>Virtually every known feathered dinosaur had feathers hands
such as?
I mean, don't strain yourself with a citation or even a single example of one animal that fits your argument.
>>2012228
>It had a beak
that has never been found
>more than passable as a bird.
except for the nostrils being in the wrong place and presumably based on bird nostril location, the beak doesn't actually exist.
> I can agree on a smaller braincage
it's not a "braincage," and that's exactly what I mean by reptilian skull. None of the expansion found in birds. The dinosaur had a brain and a skull that's more reptilian than avian.
>Covered in feathers in life. Pic related
unlikely but it doesn't matter. If you think your picture of a wing in any way resembles a hand to a trained anatomist you're barking up some very weird trees.
>Shitty artist
no, I'd guess the actual neck is considerably shorter irl.
>How do you know?
so you know absolutely nothing about bird anatomy and want to tell me I'm wrong about everything I said?
>>2012255
>only if Kulindadromeus feathers are homologous to theropod feathers.
While it's possible that Kulindadromeous may have independently developed its feather coating, it's more parsimonious to assume that it and theropods both got their coating from a shared ancestor.
>>2012255
>even if we pretend they are, there's far more dinosaurs known to lack feathers than to have them.
If we're going by 'only species with preserved traces', sure. If we're going by 'species that can be inferred to have had feathers by phylogenetic bracketing' then that number becomes a lot bigger. Maybe not a majority of species, but saying "there's far more" is probably an overstatement.
>>2012255
>Statistically if you find a skin impression there's something like a 99% chance the animal completely lacked feathers.
That's bullshit and you know it. Kulindadromeus was found with scale impressions as well as feathers, different areas on the body can have different coverings. Finding one kind of coating on one portion of the body doesn't mean anything about any of the rest of the body.
With something where we've got a massive amount of skin impressions covering most of the body, sure. We can make some pretty damn good guesses about the rest. There's little chance Carnotaurus had feathers, and there's little chance Archaeopteryx had an abundance of scales. But with many other species, where our impressions leave a massive amount of blank space, we can't make any proper guesses. Especially since we have evidence that other species exist where that blank space did have feathers in addition to the scales we have evidence for.
But enough of my bitching, here's two ridiculously outdated tyrannosauruses having sex in a pond.
>>2012262
See pretty much every fossil of winged dinosaurs. Wing feathers grow out of the fingers, after all:
http://tomozaurus.deviantart.com/art/Wing-PSA-Redux-570178834
Hell, ornithomimosaurs wer enoted to have fingers convergent with those of birds (Russell, Anthony P. (1985)).
As for the rest of your bullshit:
>that has never been found out
Ornithomimosaurs are notable for not having teeth and having rhamphothecae. Try again.
>None of the expansion found in birds. The dinosaur had a brain and a skull that's more reptilian than avian.
Sauces please. Theropods are in no way noted to have plesiomorphic braincases.
>If you think your picture of a wing in any way resembles a hand to a trained anatomist you're barking up some very weird trees.
See above. Also, considering there's blatant claws, I think you need glasses.
>>2012259
This has been dismissed because it doesn't take pterosaurs into consideration, and an homology between pycnofibers and feathers is starting to be strongly supported.
>>2012351
>That's bullshit and you know it
what are the odds that you find say, 1000 random skin samples from 1000 animals, none of those skin samples have feathers, but most or all of those skin samples come from feathered animals?
Once you've done the math, you'll see why it's not bullshit.
the odds of flipping a fair coin and getting heads is 50/50. The odds of getting heads 1000 times in a row are a bit smaller :)
>>2012382
>How likely is it that another set of multibranched, feather-like fillaments evolved?
100% likely.
multibranched filaments evolved from unbranched in theropods, meaning the branching morphology isn't basal.
so even if "feathers" are basal, they weren't branched.
>>2012395
Casuarisaurus would wreck serpentarisaurus with one kick
>tfw thinking about all the dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals that existed but never left behind any sort of fossil
>tfw thinking about how we will never know exactly how dinosaurs looked
>>2006021
That guy has knowledge, but man is he autistic
so the hoatzin is the modern Archaeopteryx?
>>2005792
>Dinosaur General: Angry Chicken Edition
What paleontologist would you kiss in the forehead?
>>2006284
not at all...
>>2011095
What is this?
>>2012228
What bird wing is this?
>>2012229
God damn it I hate featherfags so god damn much.
>>2013698
>megalosaurus had butthair
>>2013799
Now you stop that. Everything had feathers and wings. Triceratops had a pygostyle.
>>2013721
Ostrich.
More ostrich wings:
http://whatsinjohnsfreezer.com/2014/02/10/freezermas-track2/
>>2013813
That's what I thought, but I couldn't be sure.
>>2013810
Why is it even called that in english? The latin name is sagittarius serpentarius which means darting snake eater, most languages have a similarly cool name, why did the english see a giant crested land eagle who feeds on poisonous snakes and think of accountants?
>>2013882
>coloring looks like an accountant's suit
>long slender legs
>fancy head plumage
I can see it.
>>2013882
Before pencils, secretaries would keep their quill(s) behind their ear/tucked in their hair. With dem eyelashes as well, the birds do fit the secretary stereotype.
I wish we got a cooler name too.
