Why do people hate dinosaurs with feathers?
it looks gay
because jurassic park shitters
>>2083093
say that to my face
Plenty of dinosaurs had feathers; not just the small ones.
>>2083093
What are you, straight?
>>2083080
No one hates dinosaurs with feathers. Palaeontologists just hate that people seem to be so black and white about dinosaur feathers as they think either they all did or all didn't. There are plenty dinosaurs without and plenty with, but yet people and amateur paleoartists hear "dinosaurs have feathers" and give all dinosaurs feathers, even ones that are proven to not or are so far from the feathered species that you can't magic them feathers with phylogenetic bracketing.
>>2083080
Didn't they explain the raptors are that big because of other animal dna filling some spot?
>>2083337
at the time Crichton wrote the book, Deinonychus was considered to be a species of Velociraptor. Gregory Paul assigned it to Velociraptor in 1988, and Crichton published Jurassic Park in 1990.
so no real explanation was needed. Crichton was writing about Deinonychus, which was called Velociraptor at the time.
>>2083080
Scales give a more armored look to the animals. Pointed bony scoots and hard spikes also give them a more intimidating. So people consider it cooler.
Feathers are considered too soft and fluffy, or too flamboyant. Therefore it is less of a fearsome monster and more of a big chicken with teeth.
Movies are always going to be entertainment first and accuracy second, if even that.
>>2083337
They explained that they made dinosaurs that looked cool instead of accurate ones.
>>2083337
JW litterally recicled the reason why Ingen/Masrani's dinos might never look 100% identical to their extinct counterparts. They only changed the reason from
>We need to fill the gaps so we just used frog DNA to do the job
to
>We did it because it's cool,ok? People want cool not realism!
Also, Deinonychus.
>>2083389
>We did it because it's cool,ok? People want cool not realism!
They didn't change shit. It was explained in the first book.
>>2083438
>Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth.
In Jurassic park the whole genome filling is treated as something necesary to be able to create a living being because their DNA is scarce and you have to complete a genome. In JW, Wu exposes it like the only thing that matters is the final appeareance and the cool factor.
>>2083640
A small feathered dinosaur that's as smart as a killer whale.
>>2083327
>people drawing tyrannosaurus covered in feathers
>not a single tyrannosaurus feather has been found
>all known skin impressions of tyrannosaurus show scales
>b-but... it had relatives that had feathers!
And elephants had relatives covered in thick fur. Fuck, humans have relatives covered in fur.
>>2083684
>Implying elephants and humans are hairless
>Implying there's a reason why T. rex would be naked
>>2083675
>as smart as a killer whale.
not in a million years.
>>2083688
For mammals, they are.
>Implying there's a reason why T. rex would be naked
there is. a huge animal in a relatively warm part of the world (which north america was in the cretaceous) would have minimal to no body covering otherwise it would rapidly overheat.
Yutyrannus, a tyrannosaurus relative known to have feathers, was significantly less massive, with tyrannosaurus estimated at more than 7 tons, and yutyrannus being estimated at less than one ton.
>>2083080
one thing I don't get is... dinosaurs were cold blooded, how would feathers benefit a cb reptile? seems like feathers could hold in heat but also make heating up difficult.
>>2083704
Crows and parrots are pretty darn smart. Regardless, I was answering that anon's question of which would be more exciting to see in a movie.
>>2083715
less than two tons*
it's st patricks day
>>2083717
>dinosaurs were cold blooded
We don't know this. Their closest living relatives are birds and crocodilians, crocodilians being cold blooded and birds being warm blooded.
lot of people forget how massively diverse a group of animals dinosaurs were, it's possible there were both warm and cold blooded species among them.
>>2083717
they weren't cold blooded. it was an idea that always sounded stupid and incorrect to me, and more and more evidence is being discovered to the contrary
>>2083715
>a huge animal in a relatively warm part of the world (which north america was in the cretaceous) would have minimal to no body covering otherwise it would rapidly overheat.
Not necessarily.
Pic related conforms very closely to current models of integument distribution in non-maniraptoriform dinosaurs. The throat, belly, and underarms are exposed, allowing the animal to shed waste heat, while the back and flanks are protected from rainfall and sun exposure.
That aside, radiative cooling isn't the only cooling option that would've been available to T. rex. Hell, it's not even the most effective one!
Like birds, sauropods, pterosaurs, and other non-avian theropods, T. rex's skeleton was heavily pneumatized, indicating an extensive respiratory airsac system.
You know how dogs cool down by panting? Birds pant in a similar manner. However, because the airsac system has far more surface area than mammalian lungs, their panting is much more efficient.
So between having the most radiative surfaces of its body exposed to air, and the efficient evaporative cooling mechanisms afforded by its respiratory system, I see no reason why a multi-ton animal couldn't bear a coat of feathers similar to that predicted by most dinosaur integument models.
>>2083756
isn't there a bird that shits on its legs to cool off?
maybe rex did that.
>>2083756
unfortunately just showing that it's possible doesn't mean it happened.
if all we had was bracketing to go by, then yes. rex had feathers.
unfortunately the skin we have says otherwise.
I know, I know, you think the skin came from the parts that aren't feathered there.
in fact that's why the artist left those parts bare, because we know they were.
however he missed a couple spots. We also have skin from the back of the neck in Tyrannosaurus, and skin from the back in Tarbosaurus.
>>2083766
>We also have skin from the back of the neck in Tyrannosaurus
really? I'd appreciate sauce
>>2083770
sauce is in the Yutyrannus osteology.
>>2083776
>If tyrannosaurus did have feathers, I wouldn't be surprised if its head/neck was bald, though, like a vulture.
of course.
my only point is that every time we find a patch of skin that feather cape gets more and more holes in it.
I expect in another 50 years it will be gone.
right around the time Dr. Holtz retires.
>>2083080
No one is scared of birds, reptiles are more badass.
>>2083778
The only citations for T. rex skin impressions I could find in Xu et al. all led to the Wyrex impressions (which are associated with the ventral surface of the tail), and to tarbosaurus footprints.
Absolutely nothing about skin impressions associated with the neck whatsoever.
>>2083786
>which are associated with the ventral surface of the tail
I see you didn't actually read the cited material.
>>2083783
>>2083783
>>2083788
>>2083783
>No one is scared of birds
>>2083790
>>2083788
>>2083783
>>2083787
Which of the fucking cited material?
25, which is about Tarbosaurus footprints found in association with a skeleton, or 26, which is a fucking book?
>>2083794
either one from the looks of it.
but the "fucking book" is the one discussing the Wyrex impressions. Two chapters, same authors.
>>2083796
Okay, post the relevant material or link it.
I'm not buying a book and skimming through it to find your argument for you.
>>2083797
I'm not arguing with you.
if you don't want to know something I'm not going to force you.
>>2083800
Listen, buddy.
How is exhausting all resources available to me, then asking you to post information that I don't have access to an indication of me "not wanting to know something?"
If anything, you not delivering is a pretty clear indication that you're full of shit.
If you have some source which gives a more definitive placement for the wyrex impressions than "bottom of the tail," or has some other published T. rex skin impressions that google doesn't know about I'd be happy to read it, but I'm not going on a fucking scavenger hunt.
>>2083787
>>2083796
>>2083800
>which are associated with the ventral surface of the tail
>I see you didn't actually read the cited material.
From the text of the book itself, motherfucker.
Get your ass back home, because I'm done schooling you.
So all these scary fast moving sharp tooth dinosaurs were all basically emu's with a crocodiles mouth?
>>2083847
Basically, yeah, except for Carnotaurus. Turns out it was more AWESOMEBRO!!!1!™ than pretty much all dinosaurs put together.
They were covered in plates, nodules, and keratinous spikes, had a biteforce twice as powerful as any living tetrapod, and larger caudofemoralis muscles (the primary locomotor muscle for bipedal dinosaurs) than any other theropod.
They and other abelisaurids were armor plated, ran at lightning speed, and had hydraulic turbo-machetes for faces.
The fact that they lived exclusively in ranges occupied by large sauropods was not a fucking coincidence.
Carnotaurus was a living anti-tank missile that specialized in murdering the largest land animals to ever live.
>>2083715
>a huge animal in a relatively warm part of the world (which north america was in the cretaceous)
The average temp for t rexes environment was 11 degrees Celsius.
![[redundant filename].gif](https://i.imgur.com/7FI2OcC.gif "[redundant filename].gif")
>>2083863
>30-foot reptilian hyper-cheetahs
>>2083812
>Most
do you know what "Most" means?
lol
>>2083906
>Moving goalposts like this
Okay fucker, sauce me on the others.
I'll wait.
>>2083806
I've posted the relevant quote repeatedly.
Presumably for you.
I still have the jpegs sitting on my desktop. I just find your quote mining amusing. Like you actually go out of your way to avoid the parts that disagree with you. That's funny stuff. Carry on.
>>2083908
>sauce me on the others.
you're SOOOOO CLOSE though.
you've even found the relevant text free online. Almost there. Just a bit more time with the word search!
I usually search "wyrex skin" in the text of the book when we have this inane argument. Works every time.
>>2083909
>>2083911
That's the only passage in the book that contains any mention of what the skin impressions are associated with, you shitty dummy.
Phylogenetic placement suggests the widespread placement of filamentous integument on T. rex.
All verified physical evidence found so far fails to dispute that.
Let go of this weird identity-attachment you've formed around "WEEEHHH MUH T REX CANT HAV NO FAGGY FETHURS WEEEEEGHGHGHGH" and move on.
>>2083914
*phylogenetic position
[womp-womp_trombone.ogg]
>>2083914
honestly I love how triumphant and insulting you try to be when you think you've won something.
problem is neither the citation nor the fossils described magically disappear just because you're too stupid to locate them.
and in the end that's what really matters. Not your delicate self-image or your weak scholarly library. In fact nothing your or I says here will change facts.
and the facts are progressing.
why don't you email Larson and ask him about the "Nanotyrannus" mummy he lectured on last summer? You might learn a thing or two if you actually cared to humble yourself and look at what is rather than what you wish would be.
also maybe see a doctor about your anger.
>>2083347
Interseting fact
Years after JP was written and the movie was released paleontologist discovered a species of raptor in Mongolia(same location velociraptors fossils are found) that was as large as the JP raptors, they named it achillobator.
Also there is a recently discovered raptor from the US that was slightly smaller than Utahraptor, but larger than deinonychus, which they named Dakotaraptor
>>2083863
So when we have large theropods like Carnotaurus showing extensive scaley-skin with no sign of any feathers it's doesn't imply anything for other large therapods. But when Yutyrannus comes along with it's fluffy butt it means that all large theropods are feathered too until proven otherwise like in the case of Carnotaurus.
>>2084118
>it's doesn't imply anything for other large therapods
It does for abelisaurs
>Yutyrannus comes along with it's fluffy butt it means that all large theropods are feathered too until proven otherwise like in the case of Carnotaurus.
considering it's more likely that carnotaurus has scutes due to secondary loss, yes.
>>2083298
fucking str8fag
>>2083927
>neither the citation nor the fossils described magically disappear just because you're too stupid to locate them.
Nor do they magically exist because you say they do.
See, that's /your/ problem. You make claims based on scant, obscure, or frankly questionable data, refuse to provide it yourself, and act like you're right because the other party has no way of falsifying your argument.
Even when someone disproves something you say, makes a counterargument, or even asks a question that would throw doubt on your stance, you either refuse to respond directly and jump to another set of obscure "evidence," or straight-up ignore it and keep on arguing the same thing!
Newsflash: If someone asks you to provide support for your statement, saying that they're wrong or stupid for not finding it themselves /doesn't actually provide any support for what you're claiming./
I've tried having a calm discourse about this while you've just danced around and used troll tactics.
maybe you can see where I'd get a tad frustrated after a while, yeah?
tl;dr, actually provide evidence or gtfo
>>2083927
>why don't you email Larson and ask him about the "Nanotyrannus" mummy he lectured on last summer
Just did, as a matter of fact. I'm pretty interested to find out the details.
Many times "mummified" soft tissue is nothing more than a formless sleeve with no trace of integumentary detail.
>>2084118
>So when we have large theropods like Carnotaurus showing extensive scaley-skin with no sign of any feathers it's doesn't imply anything for other large therapods
>it*
>theropods*
Carnotaurus is an abelisaurid, a clade that's one of the most highly derived lineages outside of modern birds.
Given the mutability of archosaurian dermal genes (seriously, read up on archosaur beta-keratin integument. Shit. Is. CRAZY.) there's no reason to think that their coats of fluff were lost/turned into dermal armor alongside all the other weirdness, especially considering their dangerous lifestyle.
>But when Yutyrannus comes along with it's fluffy butt...
>its*
It means that there's strong evidence for large theropods RELATED to Yutyrannus having extensive feather coverage
>...until proven otherwise like in the case of Carnotaurus.
Nobody in the scientific community's ever claimed that Carnotaurus had feathers.
Hell, they found skin impressions from it back in 1997, well predating the "feather renaissance."
>>2084304
>tl;dr, actually provide evidence or gtfo
I'm not required to educate you or leave.
sorry.
>>2084364
>Just did, as a matter of fact.
I've noticed that when people leave out the "I" and say "as a matter of fact" they're generally lying.
I hope you do contact him though. Not because I think he'll answer, but because it amuses me when trolls from 4chan actually pester real people about their inane bullshit.
and in the end all of the T. rex skin impressions come down to Larson. I'm sure he'd love to hear you tell him what they are and where they come from.
Did any therapods that aren't the size of turkeys actually had 'primary' feathers like this?
Whenever I'm reading about dinosaur feathers, they always seem to stick on full out plumage.
>>2084629
Or are they more like this, like the Yutyrannus having 'stage 1 feather's? It doesn't really make any sense to me why they would have full on flying bird feathers on their arms.
>>2084629
yeah, they're known by phylogenetic bracketing in oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurs including a number of large species such as Utahraptor and Anzu.
They're also inferred in the large carcharodontosaur Concavenator based on quill knobs on the forearms. It's possible that Concavenator is misclassified though since the systematics of theropods is a clusterfuck and always has been.
>>2084707
>They're also inferred in the large carcharodontosaur Concavenator based on quill knobs on the forearms
inference of feather shapes is a lot of dogs barking up a lot of wrong trees right now, methinks.
>>2084719
perhaps.
something attached to those knobs with tendons though, and scales don't attach that way.
I think the current apology is that they're not feathers, just bare quills such as we see in therizinosaurs. That's certainly easier to explain than feathers evolving twice or being present in all theropods.
finding that the animal was classified incorrectly is an even easier explanation.
>>2084723
they can be feathers but probably not primary feathers. the guy you were responding to was asking about bird-type flight feathers specifically.
>>2084727
just because they look like flight feathers doesn't mean they are. I mean, it's a subtle distinction, but afaik flight feathers aren't known from any non-avian dinosaur.
long pennaceous feathers that look like flight feathers are what we're talking about.
and those are exactly what we've found and/or inferred in the animals I listed.
>>2084737
man i liked when dinosaurs were green
>>2083347
More like Utahraptor. Deinonychus is still to small.
>>2083788
Underrated post.
>>2084719
it's also possible what we know about feather evolution is incorrect
>>2083080
Feathers are more difficult to emulate than tight skin, either via CGI or props.
>>2083080
Because the artistic renderings of them are fucking stupid and inaccurate.
>>2083756
>People still trying to convince themselves that T-Rex was a giant Emu
Jesus Christ, is there a pill for this level of delusion? Fucking find out already. T-Rex didn't have fucking feathers regardless of how badly you otherkin faggots want it to be so.
>>2084631
>It doesn't really make any sense to me why they would have full on flying bird feathers on their arms.
Balance. Think of raptors as ground dwelling birds of prey.
>>2083927
>"Nanotyrannus" mummy
Ooo I hadn't heard about this.
>>2084118
Because featherfaggots are pure human cancer. I'm convinced at this point that featherfags are all literal furfags and that's why they cling so desperately to this shit, no matter how much evidence shits on their stupidity.
>>2084147
>considering it's more likely that carnotaurus has scutes due to secondary loss, yes.
>My supposition = fact
Enough of this retarded shit. You can't even prove that any extinct animal shares phylogeny with another. It's literally impossible without DNA sampling, so give this shit a rest already.
>>2084463
>a clade that's one of the most
See above and stop in your tracks cold. Relying on implied lineage to assert an argument about an extinct animal with no genetic material to test is full retard.
>RELATED
Prove it. Get out the preserved tissue and compare it genetically to T-Rex. I don't think you people know how science actually works. Implications are wrong. The phylogenies of extinct creatures have been reworked so god damned many times it's like you idiots know absolutely nothing about paleontology and just want to push your pet fetish, excuse me "theory", which is precisely what you idiots are doing.
I repeat, and you WILL understand: without DNA, you have ZERO case for relatedness. PERIOD. And that's ignoring all the other problems in your argument, such as these featherfag fossils almost always coming from China, land of fossil fraud.
>>2084475
I emailed him once and he responded, so he could get a response.
>>2084631
This looks MUCH more realistic. And if this is what featherfaggots would stick to, most people wouldn't have a problem with it because it's not retarded. They still put that fucking tuft on the end of the tail, annoyingly. I still wonder why literally everyone insists on doing that.
>>2087349
Except that's exceptionally wrong. Birds are flying Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs aren't derived Birds.
Would dinosaurs prey on humans?
>>2087355
>I emailed him once and he responded
What address did you use? I tried the @bhigr.com address and haven't gotten a response yet
>>2084631
Look up Fowler et al. 2011.
Dromaeosaurs likely used their "wings" for stability flapping while gripping prey with their (PREHENSILE!) feet and shredding it to shit like modern raptors do.
The model's called "RIPR," pronounced "Ripper," and stands for "Raptorial Prey Restraint."
100% Metal.
So basically, by de-feathering raptors, you're making them shittier predators.
>>2087362
I don't remember. It was many years ago. But I don't think that was it.
>>2084475
>I'm not required to educate you or leave.
You are, however, required to provide proof when the burden of proof is on you if you want people to take you seriously.
Which you haven't.
>>2087503
>if you want people to take you seriously.
If I want YOU to take me seriously.
I don't, in case you didn't notice.
I haven't since you took your first combative stance and pretended you won something when all you did is disagree. You're a joke. You're not interested in learning, you just want to win arguments on the internets.
like that somehow magically puts feathers on tyrannosaurs.
>>2087355
>Except that's exceptionally wrong
No.
>Birds are flying Dinosaurs.
Yes.
>Dinosaurs aren't derived Birds.
Wellll....no, but there's a strong likelihood that "raptors" were secondarily flightless.
ie. they descended from an ancestor with well-developed remiges (similar to Archaeopteryx or Anchiornis), and "held on" to them as evidenced by all the quill knobs and soforth.
Of course, we'll never know for *sure* whether or not large-bodied dromaeosaurs had full "wings" until someone discovers a specimen that preserves traces of the forelimb integu-- oh wait.
Y not
>>2087508
>You're not interested in learning
if I wasn't interested in learning, why the fuck would I keep asking you to provide links to your source? I WANT TO KNOW THAT SHIT.
I'm not just gonna take your word for it that I'm wrong, I WANT THAT SHIT CONFIRMED, NIGGER.
In case you haven't noticed, it's not the "T. rex was nekkid" stance that I'm rustled over, it's you being a fucking troll about it!
The data to which I am privy and the articles I've read lead me to conclude that T. rex bore broadly-distributed filamentous integument. If you provide me with something that directly disproves this, like that mythical "t. rex neck impression" you alluded to earlier that mysteriously vanished from conversation, I'd be more than happy to concede.
However, instead of actually providing anything, you've been saying "it exists but I'm not sayin where LAWL" and skirting around points I've been bringing up. Maybe if you actually gave me something to go on instead of playing Troll Tactics 2000 I'd be a little more considering, yeah?
>>2087511
>there's a strong likelihood that "raptors" were secondarily flightless.
except they have more caudal vertebrae than any known flighted dinosaur,
so you'd have to pretend they grew a ton more bones after becoming flightless, a violation of Dollo's Law.
>>2087514
>"it exists but I'm not sayin where LAWL"
I already said where.
If you can't find it I suggest you buy the book or email Larson. One of those is cheaper and easier than the other.
also, this may be very difficult for you to swallow, but not every bit of data is published, and there is no evidence at all "that T. rex bore broadly-distributed filamentous integument."
>all this rage
you people know dinosaurs were real animals, right? Real animals we're discovering more information about?
they aren't just cool movie monsters that are being 'ruined' by new canon.
>>2087544
>were
>implying they aren't still
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Matthew 7:5
>>2087548
When it rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before its thrashing - Job 41:25
(he's talking about ur mum)
The idea of giant, flightless toothy birds of prey is terrifying and awesome.
>>2087594
>>2087611
lol look at his little arms
>>2087621
his backward toe cracks me up
>>2087616
WOOOAAAHHHHHHH...
>>2087511
>No.
Yes, you retarded faggot.
>Wellll....no, but there's a strong likelihood that "raptors" were secondarily flightless.
Actually, no there isn't. Your wanting to believe so won't make it so.
>>2083135
You look gay
>>2083863
what is a machete to a tank
>>2083863
>had a biteforce twice as powerful as any living tetrapod
hardly.
Therrien found their bite to be about equal to an alligator, which makes it the weakest bite force of any large theropod.
We have these guys all over the desert here
>>2083863
Carnotaurus had a very weak bite and had to really on using its jaws like a hatchet to kill prey
Also your pic is inaccurate as fuck
Carnotaurus was giant fast moving sausage
>>2087772
What the fuck
>>2087937
Any chance it bit like a komodo? Komodos do their damage by pulling their jaws back with neck muscles, slashing tendons and tissue instead of applying bitefo ce through jaws.
>>2083098
That is very metal.
>>2083080
Because feathers on dinosaurs smacks of evolution, and proof of evolution makes Christfags go crazy.
>>2088044
Just about every christfag you'll meet these days will accept evolution as fact. Stop being such a fedora
>>2088044
>Archaeopteryx
>1861
Creationists have been ignoring feathered dinosaurs for well over 150 years now.
>>2087937
>carnotaurus
>feathers
>the one theropod we have extensive skin impressions of that show scales and no sign of feathers
you people are fucking relentless
>>2088116
Take a closer look at the picture.
You're so butt hurt over feathers that you're starting to see them even when they aren't there.
>>2088116
>the one theropod we have extensive skin impressions of that show scales and no sign of feathers
oh, we have more than one.
we have about as much skin from Tarbosaurus (Tyrannosaurus). Also an even more extensive batch from Nanotyrannus (Tyrannosaurus).
We have a fair amount of skin and osteoderms from Ceratosaurus as well. Probably a ton of others I'm not aware of.
>>2083455
Where did you get these scales? there the most accurate I've seen in a while
>>2083756
who cares
>>2084707
that new australian Megaraptorid at least promises to clear up charcharodontosur/tyrannosaur relations
thats one less thing we need to sort out
>>2083783
>no one is scared of birds
someone wasn't chased by chicken when they were 4
>>2087983
and then relying on venom and bacteria to do the real work.
>>2088116
There are no feathers in that pic retard
>>2088456
it was sorted clear back in the 1990's. The problem is that we use the exact same features to identify each clade and they're found in all derived theropods.
Finding more derived theropods with those same features isn't going to clear anything up.
It's like if we identified apples as round fruit and oranges as round fruit and you found another round fruit that's either an apple or an orange and say that'll sort it out. We need a better diagnostic than "round fruit." (or heterodonty, D-shaped basal cross-section of the PM teeth, presence of the maxillary fenestra, presence of the jugal fenestra, enlargement of the AOF etc. etc.) This is all junk that's found in almost all derived theropods, there was a time when people knew this.
>>2088702
its not derived
in fact its the oldest megaraptorid yet
its the equivalent of finding a crab apple or whatever the fuck a whild orange is.
also why do they use the same characteristics to define them? im no trained paleontologist and I can tell the difference between a tyrannosaur skull and a carnosaur skull to a fair degree.
>>2089092
>its not derived... its the oldest megaraptorid yet
the two aren't mutually exclusive. It can easily be the most basal megaraptoran AND one of the most derived theropods. In all likelihood it is, since megaraptorans are all extremely derived.
>why do they use the same characteristics to define them?
The tyrannosauroid diagnosis is based on the tyrannosaurid one, and it's somewhat useful because allosauroids and tyrannosaurids don't overlap and we already know where to expect each one to show up geographically in the Cretaceous. So if you find a large, highly derived theropod in Late Cretaceous Canada you already know it's a tyrannosaurid. Or if you find a giant, derived theropod in the Late Cretaceous of Africa you know it's an allosauroid. So the diagnoses aren't a problem as long as they're only used in the Late Cretaceous. It works.
But the instant you try to use them outside the Late Cretaceous they're useless. This creates a problem in trying to figure out tyrannosaur evolution- they're indistinguishable from allosauroids by the diagnosis alone.
the main reason we haven't fixed this problem is that there's no apparent solution. There are no particular characters that are unique to one clade or the other when discussing Tyrannosauroidea vs. Allosauroidea. We can look at them and see there's a difference, but there's no real thing we can point to and say, "that's the difference there."
>I can tell the difference between a tyrannosaur skull and a carnosaur skull to a fair degree
Yes, based just on width, length, and angle of the rostrum you should be able to tell. What you can't tell is if convergence happens. If an allosauroid evolved a tyrannosauroid skull shape or vice versa you'd never know it because aside from overall shape there's no real difference between the two.
and that's a problem.
>>2089254
so you saying there is otherwise no unique, diagnostic characteristics unique to allosaurs or tyrannosaurs that isn't a derived skull trait?
>>2089851
no, that would seem to imply that the derived skull traits are unique and diagnostic.
as far as I can tell Allosauroidea is equal to Tyrannosauroidea.
>>2090205
yeah, that's what happens when you let paleontologists draw dinosaurs.
those morons.
>>2089254
>dat shrinkwraping
jesus chist, what animal looks like that? No modern bird has sunken in fenestra like that, why the fuck would dinosaurs?
>>2090211
and you changed it from foramen to fenestra and specified birds as the animals you were comparing.
If you're interested, the reason birds faces don't look like that is because that's not a fenestra in the same sense as the AOF of gigantic theropods. Also the gap there in front of the orbit in birds is stuffed full of muscle while the AOF is mostly full of air. If the bird's face was as full of air as non-avian theropods were then you'd see the skin of the face sink in each time they inhaled.
Also as I assume you've noticed by now, there really isn't anything to compare it to any more. There aren't any animals alive that have most of their face made up of air that I can think of right off the top of my head.
>>2090214
>and you changed it from foramen to fenestra and specified birds as the animals you were comparing
I'm full of scotch on easter night, meng, cut me some slack
>here aren't any animals alive that have most of their face made up of air that I can think of right off the top of my head.
birds, m8. It's not the same of course, but its the closest we have.
and why the hell would it be full of air and no muscle? because we haven't found fossilized muscle so we gotta go "well, shit, guess they didn't have any. even though the closest comparison we can make today does"
>>2090215
>cut me some slack
I didn't intend any criticism. On the contrary I rather enjoyed that you corrected yourself.
>and why the hell would it be full of air and no muscle?
don't get me wrong, there was some muscle covering the AOF, it just wasn't stuffed full of muscle like birds are.
we can tell because muscle leaves a certain texture on the bone where it attaches. So it's easy enough to see what muscles attached to the AOF and how large they were.
These animals had faces like balloons.
>>2090216
>These animals had faces like balloons.
I still don't think we can just assume that but I'd be lying if I said I didn't wanna see it
>>2090217
the pic I posted above is related.
the colored areas of that skull are the major air sinuses.
we also know these areas were full of air because there are pneumatic diverticula in the bones of the skull in each area, little foramina for pumping air in and out of the face.
much like the sinuses in your skull, but way larger. Theropod skulls were more air than bone.
>>2089944
then why are they so far away on the theropod family tree?
>>2083812
>Only part of the site was excavated at that point
>Most of the skin was found in the part that we excavated!
>7 years ago
>>2090243
they aren't.
The only reason they aren't sister taxa is because one holds a different Linnaean rank than the other.
they're Uncle-Nephew taxa.
>>2090414
>Linnaean
I thought biology stopped using linnaean taxonomy in favor of phylogenetics?
>>2090470
perhaps, but it's still used in naming certain things.
and in this case I'm just trying to use it to explain why the two taxa don't appear directly next to each other on a theropod tree.
Allosauroidea and Coelurosauria are sister taxa. Tyrannosauroidea is the first nested clade in Coelurosauria, so it's one step away from being the sister taxon of Allosauroidea.
they're very closely related is all I'm trying to show. If that's easier to explain using Linnaean ranks then that's what I'll use.
>>2090414
Does all this mean that one or more groups could be entirely misplaced? say like Carcharodontosaurus being an early non tyrannosaur radiation of coelurosaurs or tyrannosaurs being allosaurs?
>>2083756
I want to pet it.
>>2090476
it could mean any of those things, but what I think is most likely would be that we don't know enough about the early evolution of tyrannosaurs to really say.
currently Allosauroidea and Tyrannosauroidea seem to be waste-basket taxa. We toss shit in each one if we don't really know what else to do with them.
>>2083080
>feathers
>not zebra fur
shiggy diggy you guys.
>>2084629
We have direct evidence of quill knobs on the arms of Dakotaraptor, which is indicative of primaries.
They make sense for things like display and brooding.
>>2087772
Dem curves doe
>>2087355
> Birds are flying Dinosaurs.
what is an ostrich?
what is a emu?
what are any number of flightless birds that evolved from flying ancestors?
>>2087359
here's a reasonable test,
walk in a savannah wilderness in africa where a lion/leopard/hyena/whatever could reasonably live its entire life without ever seeing a human, and see how long you last.
>>2092343
Predators encountering a species they've never seen before typically don't immediately go for them unless they have some resemblance to their usual prey animals
But once they figure out you're also made of meat and possess minimal ability to defend yourself, you're as boned as any gazelle. probably more boned.
>>2083093
Fabulous, it's called fabulous.
>>2092426
Bearded vulture is a meme.
>>2091503
Its mouth almost looks inviting :D.
>>2087342
trufax and underrated post
>>2087892
you fucking menace that bee, tiny goshawk-bat
>>2093931
vorefags get out
>>2083080
Because, Jurassic Park.
If you've ever read the book, and not just the movie novel or whatever, they actually explain why the dinosaurs have no feathers. They're all part frog. They even bring up the aspect that there will be some, "Lack of scientific accuracy, detail, color, etc." (Hammond).
Issue is, the book didn't become famous, the movie did. The book explains with great detail the creation of the dinosaurs, while the movie dumbs it down considerably.
>>2083756
Did scientist ever explain why the T-Rex had small hands or is it because they can never find a fully intact Trex with it's real arms?
>>2095075
>they actually explain why the dinosaurs have no feathers.
no they don't
>They're all part frog.
that's in the movie, not the book
>They even bring up the aspect that there will be some, "Lack of scientific accuracy, detail, color, etc." (Hammond).
also not in the book, but I love the quote marks.
you've clearly never read the bitch.
>>2095583
>>2095587
>>2095597
>>2095602
>>2083455
Utahraptor is god teir.
>>2095604
is deinocheirus the dinosaurian platypus?
Two things.
A, Feather spinosaurs. I've seen pictures of this. Personally, it hurts. What do you guys think?
B. Do you think ornithischian quills are related to saurischians protofeathers/feathers? What about pterosaurs pycnofibers?
Pic related, it's a proto-feathered Asilisaurus.I've seen this picture going around a lot lately.
>>2096492
Depends. It could have had feathers, especially if whatever it evolved from did. Seals/otters/seabirds evolved from land animals and they all still have fur/feathers.
>>2095532
Pretty sure you're the one who haven't read it, retard.
>>2090214
>There aren't any animals alive that have most of their face made up of air that I can think of right off the top of my head.
They're called politicians.
>>2096930
I have the book on my desk.
you can list me some page numbers if you think I missed those parts.
I'd show you which pages DON'T have those parts, but that's all of them as far as I can tell.
>>2096931
Underrated post
>>2092679
shame since the king vulture never gets any love
as for negative receptions of feathered dinosaurs, may have something to do with how little bird monsters there are, and what few there are get eaten like it's thanksgiving. That and people go overboard, putting feathers on bird hipped dinos
>>2083080
Because it was thought for a long time that they were just big lizards and media showed that do when the theory chaged not many people liked that
>>2083550
>Wu exposes it like the only thing that matters is the final appeareance and the cool factor.
Wu said that because they already had a working theme park for years in JW. By that time, they probably already had the technology to make accurate dinosaurs, but because they thought people wouldn't like them, they decided to keep them looking like back when they had to use filler DNA.
Velociraptor DNA probably got Deinonychus DNA mixed in to complete it, which might be the reason they're bigger than normal.
>>2083098
#REKT
>>2096931
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 420/69
>>2096930
Different "fact-checker" anon here. I too have the book on my desk.
First of all, the first feathered non-avian dinosaur described, Sinosauropteryx, wasn't described until 1996; six years after the novel came out. The reason why the dinosaurs didn't have feathers was never really stated because the possibility of feathery integument was never really addressed in the novel.
As for the frog DNA, only the dinosaurs that bred (the maiasaurs, procompsognathids, Othnelia, Velociraptors, and the hypsilophodontids) contained frog DNA. The others contained reptilian and/or avian DNA.
Page 168 - "Occasionally, yes," Wu said. "It's the only way to accomplish the job. Sometimes we included avian DNA, from a variety of birds, and sometimes reptilian DNA.""
Page 210 - "The result was clear: all breeding dinosaurs incorporated rana, or frog DNA. None of the other animals did. Wu still did not understand why this had caused them to breed. But he could no longer deny that Grant was right. The dinosaurs were breeding."
Somewhat correct in the last comment; however, both Hammond and Wu argued that the dinosaurs were essentially "real." Wu actually wanted to release new versions of the animals that were more docile and slower than the ones currently in the park. There really wasn't any discussion in terms of "lack of scientific accuracy, detail, color, etc.;" however, the point was made that these were not really "real." I guess that sort of counts. - Pages 120-123
>>2083717
obvious troll is obvious
or it's over 60 years old
>inb4 "nickels had pictures of bees on 'em"
>>2083766
wasn't there some albertosaur skin impression discovered in the 90's? I've never been able to read or find any publication on it--what ever happened to that?
>>2088440
>>2095619
Isn't Utahraptor known only from a partial skull? The snout bones? And a SINGLE specimen at that?
I know experts can extrapolate, but to talk of "accuracy" with so little evidence really skeeves me--It's how we got spinosaurus toys with big, dumb, sexy legs on them for years and years.
And we HAD far more of spinosaurus than we have of utahraptor.
>>2083704
what about....
SIXTY-FIVE MILLION???
Daily reminder that spinosaurus > trex
>>2100835
"give me five bees for a quarter"
Glorious scaly master race! May all feathered ones bow before them!
>>2100851
Oh please, everyone knows that they were wiped out in the flood of Noah. My glorious leader Ken Ham told me so
>>2096492
Both plausible.
>>2083684
>humans have relatives covered in fur.
Like my step-dad.
>>2083715
>Muh Yutyrannus
Can't wait til this species is shown to be a total fraud, not just that it's not closely related to Tyrannosaurus, but that the fossil is a complete forgery.
>>2092340
I'm unconvinced that Ratites evolved from flying ancestors. I think the received phylogeny of birds is inaccurate. I think there are multiple Therapod lineages that survived into modern day - not all of which are descended from flying ancestors, just that those for obvious reasons were the most successful.
>>2083080
I literally grew up with books saying they were scaled creatures, and now all I keep hearing is that the T-Rex was a fucking turkey. I'm not saying dinosaurs in later eras prior to their extinction didn't have some feather like scales on their bodies, but I refuse to accept they were 100% covered in feathers like birds today.
>>2101016
>T-Rex was a fucking turkey
Nobody serious is saying that. It's just featherfags. There is zero evidence that T-Rex had feahers. Featherfaggots just keep harping on their pet fake fossils from China and their assumption that there is a relation to T-Rex.
>>2101016
Science is not about what you choose to believe.
>>2101024
>going full conspiracy theorist
>>2101024
I know it's bullshit, but even recent "TV documentaries" are pushing that garbage.
>>2101026
You can't seriously tell me that EVERY single dinosaur species was a feather covered creature just because they found a few fossils with feather like modified scales, no matter the era.
>>2101027
That's because we live in the age of edge. Everything that is edgy and new and stupid is pushed down everyone's throats at all times. Facts be damned.
>>2101026
>China is a reliable source for fossils
>Oh wow! Look at that! All these crazy "revolutionary" fossils all come from the same place that has an extensive history of fraud! I'm sure it means nothing.
>Going full pleb know-nothing
>>2101028
Nobody ever said that. Educate yourself before starting internet arguments.
And please do not trust an anonymous conspiracy theorist who happens to agree with your biased uneducated opinion better than published scientists.
>>2101029
>implying feathered dinosaurs is new and edgy when fossil finds are almost 30 years old, and it had been theorized 30 years prior
>ignoring the geology of china
>believing you are better qualified to identify forgeries than people who do just that professionally and somehow you know better than the entire international scientific community
You should be ashamed of yourself.
>>2101036
>>implying feathered dinosaurs is new and edgy when fossil finds are almost 30 years old, and it had been theorized 30 years prior
Of course it's not. Archaeopteryx has been known since the 1800s. But this new "Everything had feathers and other crazy weird shit" is brand retarded new and all these fossils almost exclusively come from China. Featherfaggots are far too credulous to be seriously bothered with.
>ignoring the geology of china
>ignoring the plenteous and well-known fraud of Chinese fossils
>believing you are better qualified to identify forgeries than people who do just that professionally and somehow you know better than the entire international scientific community
>believing featherfaggot shitposters agree with the paleontological consensus
Except the paleontological consensus is NOT that every fucking Dinosaur had feathers, you retarded shit. And it sure as FUCK doesn't say that T-Rex did. That's some bullshit featherfaggots fabricated out of nothing.
>You should be ashamed of yourself.
>posting a cladogram of extinct organisms as "proof" that everything had feathers
Right back at you, you dumb cunt.
>>2101048
>blatant strawmanning
Wow.
>>2101053
>pointing out how faulty all your "evidence" for blatant class 5 featherfaggotry is is "strawmanning"
Yeah, nah, you're a cunt.
Fucking unbelievable.
>Implying Yutyrannus is the only indicator for Tyrannosaurid integument
>Implying they aren't Coelurosaurs who are all feathered
>>2101166
>Implying they aren't Coelurosaurs who are all feathered
30 years ago we thought they evolved from Allosaurus because we didn't have any better ideas.
now we think they're coelurosaurs because we don't have any better ideas.
if there's one thing you can be certain of, it's change. 20 years from now tyrannosaurids won't be coelurosaurs. Because they aren't and never were.
>>2101169
Except for all the anatomical traits tyrannosaurs share with other coelurosaurs. Now what REALLY confuses me is how the hell therizinosaurs are apparently considered maniraptors when they're clearly more closely related to ornithomimosaurs.
>>2101185
Yet another "Whatever I believe that matches my featherfaggotry is true and phylogenetic trees will never again be reworked to prove my T-Rex is a shaggy chicken" argument.
Boring. Get some new material. This shit is getting really old now.
>>2101196
I'll believe whatever the current scientific belief is. As soon as Tyrannosauoidea is reorganized, I'll be the first to spread the word about scaly T. rex. But as it is, until there's evidence to the contrary, I'll believe in a feathered rex, not because I believe it's "cooler" (it's not), but because that's the most up-to-date interpretation.
>>2101201
>I'll believe whatever the current scientific belief is
Don't count on it staying that way. It's been reworked before. It'll be reworked again.
>As soon as Tyrannosauoidea is reorganized, I'll be the first to spread the word about scaly T. rex.
No you won't, because featherfaggots are insufferable. There's zero actual evidence for a feathered T-Rex now, and some evidence for a scaly one and you're ignoring it because you want to. That's not going to change. People like you believe first, gather evidence maybe later. Not the other way around.
>But as it is, until there's evidence to the contrary
No. There is not. I don't get where you retards are getting this shit. All direct evidence disproves your assertion.
>>2101207
>No you won't, because featherfaggots are insufferable.
Nigga what. I just said that I would support your view as soon as there was sufficient evidence. No need to be a dick.
>No. There is not. I don't get where you retards are getting this shit. All direct evidence disproves your assertion.
We've got scale impressions from the tail and the ankle, IIRC, areas that totally could be featherless. Anyone who argues that T. rex was ENTIRELY feathered is retarded and hasn't evaluated all material. Could PART of it be? Certainly.
Isnt it because Chinese rocks (where many feathered dinosaurs are discovered) has more mud content or whatever that preserves feather holes better than NA rocks? well thats what one of my old (early 2000's) book said on why NA therapods seem to not have too many feather evidence.
here have a weird giant emu sloth dinosaur
>>2101185
>Except for all the anatomical traits tyrannosaurs share with other coelurosaurs
there's a great deal of convergence in theropods.
all of the traits of coelosaurs are also found in carnosaurs. Thus the previous confusion regarding T. rex evolving from Allosaurus.
Not to say they definitely AREN'T coelurosaurs, it's possible. I wouldn't call it a sure thing by any means though. If we find good evidence that tyrannosaurids had feathers I'd say they're 90% likely to be coelurosaurs, but so far that evidence is noticeably missing.
>>2100815
>tfw this is a blue board
>>2101244
>We've got scale impressions from the tail and the ankle, IIRC
the ankle on tyrannosaurs is halfway up the leg. That's not where they're from though. they were upper thigh, near the base of the tail.
>>2101256
that's the reason they have so much feather evidence, but that's not the whole reason.
The skin impressions we have from the Hell Creek and other places are also preserved in a fine mudstone that will preserve feathers if they're present. And we do have feathers from the Hell Creek and its analogues. They're bird feathers though. Flight feathers. And they are quite rare compared to those from the lithographic limestones of China and Germany.
>>2101274
I guess birds didn't really like NA for some reason. Prehistoric china meanwhile favored them heavily. I wonder what kind of qualities made china more viable for feathers. Maybe it was more junglely so it had more fruits, nuts, and insects? as compared to temperate/grassland plains NA. and the more colorful flora may have favored feather dinos for camo or signaling.
>>2101511
a couple things,
one is birds probably evolved in China and NA was about the last place they migrated.
The second is I didn't mean to imply that birds were lacking in NA. We know from bird teeth that they were well-established and quite diverse in America by the beginning of the Cretaceous.
it's just that in Germany and China we're seeing the remains of an anoxic, muddy lake. A huge one in each case.
now these same conditions are known from America, just not from that time period. We have exactly the same sorts of lithographic limestones from enormous anoxic, muddy lakes, but they aren't from the Cretaceous.
So the real reason those two places have so many feathered fossils is just luck of the draw. The conditions were perfect for completely preserving small flying animals in a way that showed every detail. Birds were all over the planet by then, they just weren't very likely to be fossilized because of size and terrain.
>>2101273
the ankle on most birds is that high as well, and unfeathered, in a vast majority of cases. Owls are the only birds I can think of which have feathered feet.
>>2083080
I don't hate the concept, I hate that people who read that smaller theropods had feathers think that t-rex had feathers. Nevermind that gigantothermy prevents that, plus we found skin samples of the T-rex and it featherless. It's stupid on such a large animal.
>>2083389
What's even better, in all the films they repeatedly say these are not real dinosaurs, even the books repeatedly say it. People can't get it through their thick skulls.
>>2083688
Elephants, rhinos, water mammals, they're all relatively hairless compared to other mammals.
>>2083715
Thank you. At least someone looks at things other than HURDUR WE WUZ FEATHERED AND SHIT.
>>2101773
>gigantothermy prevents that
Nope. Feathers serve as both heat collectors AND dispersers. Ostriches, which live in environments three times as hot as Hell Creek, stroll around in direct daylight in pure black feathers and are just fine. And in Australia, which is even hotter, at midday kangaroos have to find shade to avoid heatstroke, while equally-sized emus are just fine.
> we found skin samples of the T-rex
Bingo. Anyone who claims T. rex was ENTIRELY feathered clearly doesn't know all the facts. It likely didn't have that many, but had SOME nonetheless.
>>2095525
It's just didn't need them
>>2101244
>Could PART of it be? Certainly.
Could there be a giant invisible moon that circles the Earth and produces no perceptible gravity? Sure. Are you a fucking retard if you keep insisting it must exist despite zero evidence? Yep.
>>2102481
>zero evidence
FFS, it's called phylogenetic bracketing. Learn it.
>>2102588
phylogenetic bracketing only works if your phylum is actually genetic.
>>2102673
Clearly it's not unassailable proof. Next to NOTHING in paleontology is absolute proof, the vast majority is assumption. It's just the more LIKELY case.
>>2103000
>It's just the more LIKELY case.
maybe.
Coelurosauria is diagnosed by enlargement of the antorbital fenestra, bowing of the ulna, addition to the sacral series and stiffening of the end of the tail.
Tyrannosaurus is placed in Coelurosauria because of three of these features: enlargement of the AOF, extension of the sacral series, and bowing of the ulna.
interestingly enough Saurophaganax is diagnosed in part by bowing of the ulna and enlargement of the AOF. It also has an extended sacral series.
The diagnosis that places tyrannosaurids in the Coelurosauria would also make Saurophaganax a coelurosaur despite the fact that we know it's a carnosaur, essentially just a large Allosaurus with a bowed ulna and larger AOF. Though even that's not entirely true since about half of Allosaurus skulls have an enlarged AOF, it was probably a sexual trait. And bowing of the ulna was likely a size-related thing outside of coelurosaurs.
whether or not Tyrannosaurus was a coelurosaur or even a tyrannosauroid is anyone's guess at this point.
again, finding Tyrannosaurus feathers would help with that a lot, but they're still missing.
>>2103009
Huh, that's fascinating, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info...
Also, since you clearly know a lot more about this than I - what do you think of Kulindadromeus's feathers? I thought they were entirely part of convergent evolution, but then I also saw stuff about a study showing that Alligator embryos held some kind of keratin only found otherwise in feathers, leading some to hypothesize that the trait was basal to archosauria. I'm still skeptical about featherless dinosaurs all being secondarily integument-less, but what are your thoughts on this?
>>2103059
Kulindadromeus had both branched and unbranched filaments, but the branched types appear to be absent in basal tyrannosauroids and feathers of any kind are absent in tons of dinosaur lineages.
so it would appear that convergent evolution once would be the simplest answer rather than convergent loss twenty or more times.
Also the branched feathers in Kulindadromeus lack a central shaft, which may indicate that they followed a different path of feather evolution than theropods did.
Right now my money's on convergent evolution in two or more taxa, but that will change if we start seeing more feathered dinosaurs from the Triassic and early Jurassic. At the moment there's not much evidence from basal dinosaurs, I think Dilophosaurus is the only one atm. Though the supposed feather imprints from that animal could be interpreted as plant imprints from where it sat/stood. As usual we need more data, and in time we'll have that. It is interesting to note that despite feather keratin being found in alligator embryos, we still haven't found any croc fossil with feathers or fluff. This would seem to indicate the mrca of crocs and birds didn't have fuzz. It appears it was already lost by the time dinosaurs evolved, and they regained it later.
