shoebill bird appreciation thread
>two kids
>welp better kill one
Shoebills don't have hearts
That is a dinosaur
>>2069026
Its the older/stronger sibling(s) that attack, wound and weaker the others. Then in favor of the stronger one, the parents raise that one. Infanticide and siblicide happens with a shitton of animals.
>>2068975
joe rogan exprience?
Shoebills are in the heron family right? Might as well have a heron thread. They all have funny faces
Pic related OC taken by yours truly.
>>2069037
I know, its just that I was just rewatching /an/'s spirit animal ie David Attenborough's Africa and wanted to shitpost about it.
![12139718585_49c657fa8e_b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/I6ARM08.jpg "12139718585_49c657fa8e_b[1].jpg")
>>2069178
last I heard shoebills are more related to pelicans. but here's the heron equivalent of a shoebill, the boatbill
>>2069031
New desktop, thanks anon.
How about extinct birds?
>>2069530
Stop with this meme, dinos are not birds, just like apes are not monkeys.
>>2071513
Dinos are not birds, but birds are theropods, which is a group of dinosaurs. Apes are also monkeys.
>>2071513
>buttmad scalefags
>>2071513
Monkeys are literally apes with tails. wtf are you talking about?
>>2072603
No, it's the other way around. Apes are monkeys without tails.
Apes are monkeys, but monkeys aren't apes.
>>2069530
>>2071513
Suprised anyone's still getting to grips with the idea of feathery dinos, we've had examples of fluff, quills and fuzz from all different kinds of non avian dinosaurs for years. Its just pop culture that clings on to rubbery lizards.
>>2072602
Is intended to be silly, but in all seriousness even protoceratops has been found to have had butt quills like a porcupine. The image anon is whining about is probably pretty accurate, neck frill aside. Even the colouration is probably quite likely. We've been able to determine from certain well preserved fossils that some small fuzzy theropods were decked out in shades of stripy brown.
>>2072602
>Supersayanosaur
>>2071514
>Dinos are not birds
Then don't post them.
>>2071514
dinosaurs can be birds, it's just that most of them weren't birds.
>>2072789
>most of them weren't birds.
something like 90% of known dinosaur species are modern birds. Extinct non-avian dinosaurs are less than 10% of all dinosaurs.
>>2072807
the keyword here is 'known'
we will never discover most dinosaurs.
>>2072813
most estimates are that we'll find another ~1-2 thousand more dinosaur species.
there are probably about 10-20 thousand extinct bird species we haven't found.
birds have outnumbered non-avian dinosaurs since the cretaceous.
>>2072815
that's what we can find, there aren't any fossils of most animals that ever existed.
seeing birds are relatively modern, there's probably a shit ton leading up to it we'll never find.
doubt modern birds can outnumber that.
>>2072816
birds are older than 90% of non-avian dinosaurs.
they evolved in the early Jurassic.
but yes, in reality there are probably closer to 10,000 species of dinosaur we'll never find, and about 200,000 species of bird we'll never know about.
that's just assuming we find about 1% of species.
>>2072820
that's still relatively recent.
but we don't know how many early dinosaurs there were, and we will never know.
besides, can you really consider proto-birds, actual birds?
>>2072822
>that's still relatively recent
it's older than the vast majority of dinosaurs.
>can you really consider proto-birds, actual birds?
I'm just counting from when flight evolved.
>we don't know how many early dinosaurs there were, and we will never know.
again, we know of 10 birds for every non-avian dinosaur, and that 10:1 ratio is true from the mid-Cretaceous on.
there's no reason whatsoever to think dinosaurs ever outnumbered birds. They didn't even outnumber birds most of the time they existed.
>>2072825
>it's older than the vast majority of dinosaurs.
that depends on how many dinosaur species there were at the time.
>I'm just counting from when flight evolved.
not everything that flies is a bird though.
>They didn't even outnumber birds most of the time they existed.
you don't know that either.
there's no reason to assume anything about it.
>>2072830
you're trying an argument from ignorance, the problem is you're ignorant while paleontologists in general know.
I've read the censuses, I know for a fact Cretaceous bird species outnumber non-avian dinosaurs 10 to 1.
you can argue that there are some dinosaur species that haven't been discovered, but knowing that bird are less likely to be preserved and found that just indicates that unknown birds outnumber other dinosaurs by far more than 10 to 1.
either way, an argument from ignorance doesn't work so long as we assume the bird:dinosaur ratio of 10:1 is either accurate or low. There's no reason to think otherwise.
let me know if I'm going to fast for you, I can try to break it down since you don't seem to get what I'm saying.
we know for a fact bird species outnumbered non-avian dinosaurs since at least the Cretaceous.
>>2072832
meanwhile you're trying to pull a appeal to probability.
>I know for a fact
facts don't exist in science, you know this.
>but knowing that bird are less likely to be preserved
another appeal to probability.
your entire post is a base rate fallacy.
>>2072832
>you're trying an argument from ignorance
also that's not how the argument from ignorance works.
I'm not saying it's true because we don't know/
I'm saying we don't know because we don't know.
>>2072834
>facts don't exist in science, you know this.
science doesn't produce facts.
science starts with facts.
the ratio of known birds to non-avian dinosaurs is a fact.
that the ratio is representative or low is a certainty.
>your entire post is a base rate fallacy
says the guy that doesn't think data are facts.
look, birds are 90% of known dinosaurs, you'd need a fucking miracle for your claim to be true.
this doesn't mean you're a drooling retard, it doesn't make you some sort of pathetic cretin.
it just means you said something that's not true. Again. Then spent ten posts trying to find some miraculous universe where your lie is magically true.
as usual.
>>2072837
>science starts with facts.
science starts with a consensus.
'facts' aren't a thing, there's no 100% certainty in anything.
>the ratio of known birds to non-avian dinosaurs is a fact.
it's also entirely useless because we're never going to know how many non-avian dinosaurs there were in the first place.
>you'd need a fucking miracle for your claim to be true.
what claim, you're reading in statics because you're an autist unable to have a normal conversation.
maybe you should just pull a argumentum ergo decedo like you usually do.
>>2072839
>what claim
your claim that most dinosaurs aren't birds.
you need to come up with a real 9000+ species of dinosaurs for that to be factually true which is more than 9 times what has currently been found.
our best estimates indicate we have found half of all non-avian dinosaur species already.
The problem is in your search for those 90% of missing dinosaur species you pretend are out there, you're going to find hundreds of thousands of bird species.
because we find about 10 species of fossil bird for every species of non-avian dinosaur we name.
no matter how many dinosaurs you pretend we haven't found, there's always going to be more birds that we haven't found.
>>2072842
>your claim that most dinosaurs aren't birds.
and most dinosaurs aren't your traditional bird.
proto-birds aren't birds.
>you need to come up with a real 9000+ species of dinosaurs for that to be factually true
appeal to probability again.
>>2072844
>appeal to probability again
no, that's a fact.
there are currently over 9500 more species of bird known than non-avian dinosaur.
you would need to find a real 9000+ new species of dinosaur just to have a tie.
that's not a matter of probability, that's the factual number you would need for half of all dinosaurs to not be birds.
to go over half and make your statement true you need to come up with closer to 10,000 new species of dinosaur.
>>2072845
this is a bird.
>>2072844
>proto-birds aren't birds.
I think you're probably stoned again.
what's a "proto-bird"?
whatever it is, it's probably less than 20 of the ~10,500 named bird species. Subtracting out "proto-birds" doesn't change a thing.
>>2072848
this is just whatever.
>>2072850
you don't get to decide what's a bird and what isn't though.
sorry.
>>2072850
>wow I'm going extinct what should I do?
>better keep adding additional wings.
my favorite birbs by far
>>2072851
it's a good thing you don't either.
it's obvious that there's going to be more birds known to science than non-avian dinosaurs, mainly because the latter is extinct.
>>2072854
>mainly because the latter is extinct.
there were more birds than non-avian dinosaurs when the latter were NOT extinct.
full stop.
Non-avian dinosaurs were never as diverse as birds. Mostly because they were on average much much larger.
>>2072851
here, this should make it pretty clear what a bird is.
I used nice evenly made figures, as to not trigger your autism.
>>2072857
all you have to say is Pygostylia.
which is fine. Pygostylans have outnumbered non-avian dinosaur species since at least the beginning of the cretaceous.
excluding non-pygostylian avialans only switches about 20 species in my count over. An insignificant number when you need more than 9500 to make your lie true.
>>2072860
im ok with Ornithurae, Euornithes aren't birds though.
>when you need more than 9500
it's not going to be a struggle.
why cant I hold ALL of these dinosaurs?
>>2072861
>it's not going to be a struggle.
I think you'd be amazed at how dismally low dinosaur diversity is if we exclude birds.
>>2072868
that's because we're never going to find most of them.
what makes you think birds don't preserve as well as non-bird dinosaurs.
I'm saying non-bird, as avian-dinosaurs aren't always birds.
>>2072869
>that's because we're never going to find most of them
by every modern estimate we already have found most of them.
>what makes you think birds don't preserve as well as non-bird dinosaurs.
size.
the smaller the dinosaur the fewer examples of it we find.
also comparison of bones to teeth.
for example there are 0 bird species known from bones in Texas.
there are somewhere between 5 and 10 bird species known from teeth in the same area.
this indicates that birds were present but not preserved. In contrast the same study only shows 1 species of non-avian dinosaur that was present according to tooth counts but not known from bones.
>>2072873
>in Late Cretaceous Texas
should probably limit the time frame, I have no idea how many bird fossils are known from more recent Texas.
>>2072873
>by every modern estimate
and those are based on what?
>the smaller the dinosaur the fewer examples of it we find.
isn't it based more on the thickness of the bones.
>there are somewhere between 5 and 10 bird species known from teeth in the same area.
how do they know it's 5-10 species and not just one species with a lot of retarded teeth.
>>2072876
>and those are based on what?
rate of discovery and estimate of actual diversity.
the modern view is that we've spent almost 200 years searching some rock units and we aren't finding new animals, so it's very likely that what we've found represents actual faunal diversity.
this being the case, dinosaur faunas were the least diverse of any known fossil assemblage since the Cambrian.
>isn't it based more on the thickness of the bones
that's a function of size.
>how do they know it's 5-10 species and not just one species with a lot of retarded teeth.
all known toothed birds are homodontous.
>>2072886
>surely there should be at least 100,000 species?
Yeah, if they had diversity and turnover similar to mammals or birds we'd expect over 100k species out there and something like 10k species known.
both numbers are well over ten times what we actually see.
>I know only about 1% of them will be discovered, but the estimates seem really low.
their diversity was apparently very very low.
many of their species covered half of the globe, and a lot of them were so large that other species simply couldn't survive next to them.
I'd have to go back and check, but I think we know of something like ten times more mammals from the Mesozoic than we do non-avian dinosaurs.
>>2072848
Modern birds still have the theropod gait proving they really are mutated tiny dinosaurs. Also cassowaries are fucking dinosaurs.
>>2072610
and finkle is einhorn. what's your point?
