I wonder if there any people who hate most of the dinofags on the internet? Because i sure do.
How to spot those people:
>has a T-rex or raptor avatar
>says shit like OMG YOU KNOW THAT DINOSAURS ARE ACUALLY BIRDS? :\
>says "Ummm...you know that Pteranodon is not a dinosaur, right?" when people just discuss "prehistoric animals"
>exclusively likes Raptors. Not interested in any other dinosaur neither even knows shit about raptors. (for example thinks that they are like cats while raptors were more like dogs with pack-hunting methods and gets offended if raptors are not "cute" or "soft and smart" which shows another sighs of projecting catfaggotry to other animals)
>expects EVERY dinosaur in pop culture/movie/videogame/toy industry be accurat even if it supposed to be a monster aimed at kids (a level boss, or an action toy that should be entertaining for example).
>exclusively likes T-rex and most of the time its based on childhood JP-experience. I think this is the most pathetic dinosaur fan. Because its can be just a child or a whiny manbaby (second most of the time because most of JP-kids grew up already)
Let's begin. Let's gather other examples and share experiences. Im not expecting this thread to be a calm and safe place..in fact, i think it will be an opposide, but damn, those people of internet dino community should be ridiculed.
You start
>>2122757
>being this offended
n o
>>2122731
> exclusively likes raptors
> exclusively likes trex
Make up your mind you stupid cunt
>>2122786
>Make up your mind you stupid cunt
You seem upset, raptorfag, you can't even use logic.
>>2122731
Autism the post
>>2122731
Honestly you seem anus annoyed
>>2122731
>exclusively likes raptors
These fags exist in furry, they are cancer.
>>2122890
>implying all furries aren't cancer
wew lad
>>2122731
>raptors were more like dogs with pack-hunting methods
There is no evidence they hunted in packs.
the Tenontosaurus-Deinonychus sites would perhaps be evidence except all the dead Deinonychus at those sites were eaten by other Deinonychus. Modern pack hunters don't usually kill and eat their pack mates, raptors did this all the time.
>>2122893
>Modern pack hunters don't usually kill and eat their pack mates
yes they do.
>>2122893
>Modern pack hunters don't usually kill and eat their pack mates
Average raptorfaggot. Yeah.
>>2122890
>These fags exist in furry, they are cancer.
Nope i didn't mean furry when i was talking about exclusively raptorfags.
They like dinosaurs only - mostly feathered (i have NOTHING against feathers) but their "faggotry" creates cancer so strong it can be used to create an adom bomb.
>>2122893
>raptors were more like dogs with pack-hunting methods
>There is no evidence they hunted in packs.
Neither they were acting like fucking cats. Not to mention everything points at raptors beling close to having a canine lifestyle.
You can stop spreading this shit now.
>selfprojecting your personal "domesticated pet" fetish as is
>>2122731
>tfw used to tell my friends when I was young they didnt actually like dinosaurs they just liked movie monsters
>it was fucking true and they didnt know shit beyond what jurassic park told them, often spouting lies
>they would refuse to read my books my grandfather bought me or watch walking with dinosaurs
>call me a faggot for liking the land before time because "its for babies"
It was some shit trying to tell them velociraptors werent the size spielberg made them and that deinonychus was a better match
JP is still my favorite movie though
>he still believes in dinosaurs
>>2122911
I was with you until the Land Before Time shit.
>>2122731
>So not a thinly-veiled The Isle thread
Don't forget Allosaurus or Dilophosaurus fans, they think they're neutral but they circle-jerk like everyone else.
>>2122954
we were like 10 man
I still stand by the first land before time to its a fine family movie
>>2123336
>Dilophosaurus fans
do they exist? i never seen any.
But yeah i noticed Allosaurus and Carnotaurus fans.
Btw
>The Isle
Actually...i personally didnt noticed raptorfaggotry in that game as much as in Primal Carnage: Exctinction (which is faggotry cingefest with its frozen development and endless RP-servers).
A lot of people play as herbies. I personally play as stegosaurus and wander around with a huge group of trikes and stegos and others. We destroy everything that tries to bother us.
Which is kind of weird. I think in real life dinos would wander around together mixing 1-2 species in one herd like nowadays herbies. It's so hard for carnivorous dinos to attack herds this huge and with that variety.
They not as fearsome in reality as JP shows them.
OP you seem butthurt.
>primal carnage
>raptor fags
I... terribly misunderstood what you people were talking about.
I was like "There aren't any of those dinosaurs in primal carnage! You're crazy, what the fuck."
Then I googled it and found out I was thinking of Primal Rage.
yeaaaaa
>>2123451
>primal carnage
Actually raptorfags will hate you for prefering this kind of style of raptors.
Talon dont fit neither to featherfags nor to scaliefags.
He is a semi-feathered raptor with MOHAWK.
Almost all raptorfags hate mohawks because its some kind of "meme", "if you draw raptor-add a mohawk cuz its kewl :)"
>>2122731
are you that Barney shitposter from /co/ and /v/?
I'm still mad that there were at least 5 AWESOME reptile dinos but no dino ever had scales or looked like a reptile.
Nope. Just dumb looking giant birds. Ignore the awesome ancient crocs and snakes and pterodactyls. those prolly looked like dumb fuzzy cows and that's somehow cooler
>>2123464
>I'm still mad that there were at least 5 AWESOME reptile dinos but no dino ever had scales or looked like a reptile.
>Nope. Just dumb looking giant birds. Ignore the awesome ancient crocs and snakes and pterodactyls. those prolly looked like dumb fuzzy cows and that's somehow cooler
My english is not good so i dont fully understand you.
>there were at least 5 AWESOME reptile dinos
where?
>pterodactyls. those prolly looked like dumb fuzzy cows
what the actual fuck?
No they not.
>pterodactyls
>dumb fuzzy cows
The hell?
>>2123466
5 ancient reptiles
ancient croc
ancient titanoboa
pterodactyls WERE reptiles
mosasaurs!
and squamata (ancient shitty little lizards like we have today. Tiny geckos and skinks and normal iguanas)
I'm just mad that literally no dino cn be a reptile and I'm sure there's drawings of pterodactyls that look like "parrots" or some retarded shit.
Reptiles > every other animal
>>2123458
primal rage aren't exactly dinosaurs. They are dark gods.
There is also an acid spitting giant ape and a telekinetic viper-snake dinosaur thing.
armadon was my go to guy anyways.
>>2123470
also, best ending of a game ever. Fucking enslaving all of mankind in a living dinosaur hell forcing them to fight one another for your entertainment.
>>2123470
>primal rage aren't exactly dinosaurs. They are dark gods.
Hate to be that guy but dinofags from OP's post would hate that too.
They hate situations where dinosaurs not supposed to be "le-accurate" but monsters/devils that look like dinosaurs/etc.
I saw few youtube toy reviews (monster-dinosaur for kids) and Deviantart accounts (drawing of a dino-like monster for card game) where some idiot was dancing in the comments with his "not accurate!!" crap.
It's even funnier when its a raptor-like creature. They start giving links to article and spread "THEY WERE BIRDS" - meme like autists.
>>2123485
those people must have fuckin hated jurassic world.
So many people felt clever pointing out the lack of feathers in the movie and how the movie never addressed it. When in fact, it did. The scientist guy literally says that they were never accurate but were "Genetically modified theme park attractions" The dinosaurs were designed to fit what people imagine them to be. How they have been depicted in entertainment and media for a fucking century.
We get it. JP wasn't accurate. We don't care.
>being a fan
>of an animal
What did you expect?
>>2123467
You sound underage.
>>2122731
>Everyone must enjoy dinosaurs in exactly the same way I do
no
>>2123417
>do they exists?
Yes, they do. Especially the ones that love the 'frilled' version of Dilo, only escalated worse when Ark:SE came out.
>faggotry on The Isle
This is more of a /v/ discussion, but aparently people get salty about rex groups and the devs having a 'fuck you' attitude. Not to mention the community has some form of tribal mentality going on that despise newcomers, who looked into guides and dev news, because they 'don't participate enough with the development'.
>>2123489
Jurassic World was shit precisely because of the reasons JP was great. JP came out at a time where dinosaurs were thought to be big, slow, dumb animals and updated their popular image. JW took a look at all the recent discovery and said "nah, more big spooky lizards please".
I was expecting them to take feathered dinosaurs and make them scary. We know this is possible because birds are feathered dinosaurs and also fucking scary. A "raptor" preening blood from its feathers after eating some dude would be a fucking iconic image.
>>2122905
What exactly points to a "canine lifestyle"? Also, the poster you replied to made no mention of cats. Some theropods probably lived in groups, but it was probably more similar to crocodylians than actual pack hunters.
>>2123950
>preening blood from its feathers
I would pay to see this
>>2123965
>Some theropods probably lived in groups, but it was probably more similar to crocodylians than actual pack hunters.
proof?
>>2124105
Well they've found tyrannosaurs and some abelisauids in nesting groups. And at least allosaurus fragilis had a brain case and shape extremely similar to a crocodilian's.
>Not liking dinosaurs
Confirmed woman. Honestly you shouldn't even be allowed to browse /an/ if prehistoric animals don't fill you with awe and wonder. Contemporary animals are overdone.
>tfw I have too many favorite dinosaurs from many different groups so I just can't pick one
>>2123497
oh sure
like you are not a fan of anything
>>2123950
>>2123985
>>2123464
I think that comment made every single paleozoologist on the planet want to repeatedly stab you in the neck.
>>2122905
Can't lie, the obviously human legs trigger me.
>liked Triceratops since I was a kid
>never got flak for it
Who are you talking to OP?
>>2122731
1.Why is that bad?
2.They are... which your rex is more like an iguana.
3.That's because people still call them dinosaurs. Even the recent Pixar movie 'The Good Dinosaur'
4.There is nothing wrong with having a favorite dinosaur. Mines is baryonyx.
5.Perception matters. They do not have to be 100% accurate, but there should at least be some degree of accuracy such as feathers (which is so vastly proven)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAixpQcqdU
6.T.rex is the most famous and well studied of all dinosaurs. It is also one the most brutish, robust and dangerous dinosaurs so far; or at least easily in a top ten for these titles.Thus making it a very popular choice, which is not at all wrong.
By the way, I am a major Paleo nerd and am not at all ashamed of it.
>>2122731
>people like thing
>can't handle the fact that people like thing
>has to make a thread on an anonymous mongolian claymation smoke signal board explaining that he doesn't like that people like thing
wew lad
>>2125346
You sound underage.
>I am a major Paleo nerd
ugh.
Fuck off.
>>2125496
Supposedly, that's a thing. Either way, age does not make me wrong in why I said at all.
>>2125524
Sure, Timmy.
What a weird thread. What's wrong with dinosaurs or thinking they are cool? I can understand that some people just really aren't all that into them but I don't think I've ever encountered someone that outright hates dinosaurs. Seems like a strange thing to hate. It's like saying 'FUCK I HATE NEANDERTHALS!' Like.. Why? How?
Did OP get beat up by a kid wearing a T.Rex costume in grade school or something?
>>2125558
>What's wrong with dinosaurs or thinking they are cool?
Are you like...literally retarded?
>>2125561
Did you got beat up by a kid wearing a t-shirt that says "i hate raptorfags" in grade school or something?
What kind of moronic logic is that?
summer is the most beautiful time of the year, why can't all you 16-year-olds spend it outside getting laid instead of in your rooms, fucking around on an East-Timorean paper-mache emailing service?
>>2125555
John.
Oh, and sorry for the small typo of "why"'. I was on a tablet (still am).
Either way, nothing you said invalidates what I wrote, even 'if' I was a child; must be one smart rational child...
>>2123467
You need to be 18+ to visit this website
>>2122731
>>2122905
>>2123965
> Comparing dinosaurs to mammals
Maniraptorans "social structure" was probably similar to johnny rooks and related predatory/ opportunistic birds. Living and hunting in groups when juvenile and sub-adult (and only occasionally as adults) then living in pairs and small family groups. Birds are birds (even prehistoric ones) and will behave as such.
I agree. Dinosaur fans are a special kind of irritating. They make me think of 14 year old furries.
Favourite dinosaurs: always predators
>>2126750
No. You have to be an absolute autist to think that bdinosaurs that are millions of years of evolution away from birds with a completely DIFFERENT LIFESTYLE (stop with your autistic bird meme already, dinosaurs were nothing like birds because if you compare Brachiosaur to MODERN birds you are fucking moron).
Just like OP said - raptorfags are the worst.
Sure triceratops or stegosaurus or spinosaurus acted similar to modern birds that completely changed the life style after such a big change.
>comparing dinos to birds
Yes? Ceratopsians were closer to modern herbies than to birds.
Kys
>>2126830
You, sir, are an idiot. I was speciffically referring to maniraptorans for the behaviour comparison. And in internal anatomy ALL dinosaurs were more similar to birds than to mammals.
Even ceratopsians. A lot of them are thougjht to have had quills. You know what quills are? Primitive feathers.
Even fucking stegosaurs.
Brachiosaurs (and other sauropods, as well as some hadrosaurs) used gastroliths to grind plant matter (like ostriches (and other herbivorous birds).
The fact that they filled various niches that today are filled by mammals does not change their internal anatomy, which in turn dictates behaviour to no small extent.
>>2126787
This.
I have come across some herb lovers, but most are sauropods and Triceratop lovers.
>>2126863
Best herbivore, coming through.
>>2126866
I like to believe these things were prehistoric hippos.
Big, dumb looking and possibly with even dumber-looking display feathers on males, but will also kill you dead and eat your corpse if you so much as look at them funny.
>>2126866
I like this artist's depiction of therizinosaurus. It has a big fluffy tail.
I am also partial to dryosaurus.
>>2126875
They probably were somewhat similar in temperament. A mix between wild boar and a pissed off rooster.
>>2126877
Not a dryosaurus, but same family.
>>2126877
>>2126866
I feel like they are going a bit overboard with the feather shit right? like.. head to toe covered in modern-day bird like feathers is a stretch. What's with the tiny little wings with borderline flight feathers?
The fossils and bone structure vaguely resemble a bird but are completely different than other fossils of dino's that do have large wing like feathers (not to mention the incredibly size difference) The feathers depicted there would be almost 2 yards long. That seems a bit much.
Just tone it back a bit artists. The feathers dinosaurs sport aren't going to look like anything we have today. It's like we went from reptile-like tail dragging dinosaurs 40~ years ago to something that's just as drastically wrong but in the complete opposite direction.
>>2126900
Once you developed feathers, there's no reason not to cover your entire body with it, except obvious bits like the feet or the head for scavengers. If you subscribe to punctuated equilibrium, then it also isn't much of a stretch to say that the time between first feathers and complete feather coverage would be relatively short.
But larger dinosaurs would either be naked like elephants or covered with small, scruffy feathers like ostriches.
>>2126786
>I agree. Dinosaur fans are a special kind of irritating. They make me think of 14 year old furries.
Oh my god THIS.
I was trying to remember a group of people that has similar annoying retardation and 14y/o furfags has exact same behavior.
>>2126787
>Favourite dinosaurs: always predators
Even more:
>TREX XDD
>RAPTORXDDD
>wh...what? i dont know about that dino :(
every damn time.
If you like rex or raptors you are fucking scum.
>>2126909
>Once you developed feathers, there's no reason not to cover your entire body with it,
What I'm saying is those feathers covering their bodies probably wouldn't be so large and fluffy looking. They would either by smaller or incredibly spiny and lacking that "soft" modern bird-like appeal. They would serve absolutely no purpose to the animal other than as protection or body heat reserve. Probably more akin to thick hairs on most mid-large-extra large dinos.
>except obvious bits like the feet or the head for scavengers
The artists are just copying modern birds with no thought at all.
As for scavengers is it that obvious? Many scavenger animals still do in fact have fur on their faces. I don't think the artist put that much thought into it. They think "Hey, they have no feathers on their faces/beaks!" and then proceed to paint the dinosaur as if it had a fucking beak.
>r covered with small, scruffy feathers like ostriches.
Instead they paint a T-rex like it's a large fuckin peacock.
>>2126863
>I have come across some herb lovers, but most are sauropods and Triceratop lovers.
But noone is nearly as cancerous and autistic as Raptorfags.
>>2126938
>What I'm saying is those feathers covering their bodies probably wouldn't be so large and fluffy looking.
This is another typical featherfag meme.
Look at birds. I don't see chicken/crows/etc. beign fluffy and silly looking.
I have no idea why they keep drawing them like drag queens.
>>2126936
How about ostafrikasaurus?
That's one of my favorite spinosaurids
>>2126940
When a chicken first hatches from an egg, what kind of feathers cover it's body?
>>2126938
You have little to no knowledge of paleozoology or evolutionary biology. Feathers appeared quite early in dinosaur evolution. By the mid jurassic there were many dinosaurs with complete (and "fluffy") feather coats. See: Archaeopteryx, which is now known to have had pennaceous flight-appearing feathers on its legs as well
The amount of uneducated kids in this thread is higher than Bob Marley on an average tuesday.
also
This thread is now a paleoart / paleozoology / dinosaur general thread.
>>2126750
Young tyrannosaurs are really cool looking.
>>2126958
Forgot pic.
>>2126959
Like leaner, meaner versions of their parents
>>2126943
>When a chicken first hatches from an egg, what kind of feathers cover it's body?
Are you a retard?
>>2126958
Stay mad, Timmy. And never go full retard.
>this thread is now a
Nope.
The fact that you are that triggered and can't stop sperging with "PALEOXDDD" autism shows that OP was right about this whole autistic community.
>posting pic of oviraptor
Yeah right.
Go play Primal Carnage. Dis gaem iz soo kewl :^)
>>2126964
looks like chicken. not a thing to be taken seriously.
>>2126947
>Archaeopteryx
literally the only an example
literally the size of a bird.
using a creature that that's dramatically different than other dinosaurs as evidence all dinosaurs had giant fluffy feathers is quite retarded.
that is some massive leap in logic.
>>2126947
>You have little to no knowledge of paleozoology or evolutionary biology
I almos hear that saliva-driven speach of picrelead neckbeard.
What an earth is sadder than over the top paleofag.
>>2126977
This "looks like chicken" bullshit is as bad as the plumeosaur meme.
How the fuck is that thing a chicken? It doesn't look all that different from JP dinosaurs, except for fur. It's not even feathery, just plain brown quills.
>>2126964
Definitely. They look like something that actually had to hunt in order to survive, while adults look like they could muscle into any kill they wanted.
It's probably faulty reasoning, but it's just easier to picture them actively hunting than adults.
>>2126947
>only about 5 specimens discovered
>all in the same family
>many forgeries
>one specimen with "imbricated rows of scales on top of its tail and also a covering of scales branching into feather-like structures" found
>mid-late jurassic period
How is mid-late jurassic "early"? Like are you fucking retarded?
As for the feathers they discovered they are not the large "FLUFFY" type depicted in those illustratrions. The "feathers" found on a 1.5 meter long dinosaur did not cover it's entire body and were at most 2cm long.
Most of the "feathers" were hair like and 3cm long.
How the fuck do you go from that to >>2126964 with massive feet long fluffy feathers?
>>2126982
Nice ad hom, homo. You won a (You). Does the fact that some people have slightly above basic knowledge of comparative anatomy bug you? I recommend you go to >>>/pol/ . They REALLY hate science there. You'd fit right in.
Pic unrelated.
>>2126988
That's some low level troll or really uneducated poster.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/earliest-dinosaurs-may-have-sported-feathers
I'll just leave this here.
Posting good paleoart. Starting with some John Conway.
>>2126989
>Nice ad hom
Wow. He even used that "le ad Hominem Attack :((((((" meme.
What a pathetic faggot.
>some people have slightly above basic knowledge of comparative anatomy
No neckbeard. Watching JP and playing The Isle is not having klowledge.
Your level is quite low actually.
Well...average DA-tier paleofag level i would say.
>>2127010
Another
>>2127010
Looks flat. take that autistic crap with you.
>>2126991
Are you fucking retarded or what? Do you even know how to read?
Seriously dumbass, I never said they didn't have "feathers". But again, are you so retarded you seriously read what I typed as "DINOSAURS DON'T HAVE FEATHERS"?
>>2127012
The only one assblasted here is you, friendo. 1/10 for making me answer,
>>2127015
ITT: babby's first troll
>>2127013
Artist in watermark
>This thread
>>2127025
Emily Willoughby
>>2127029
Another hell creek denizen, same artist as before,
I'm legit wondering the lack of sanity in you guys...
>>2127034
but WHY YOU NO LIEK RAPTORZ :(
>>2127030
Another Csotonyi
>>2127013
>>2127010
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
These are not the kind of feathers dinosaurs would have had. Not even fucking close. These paintings are straight up modern birds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulindadromeus
"The feather remains discovered are of three types, adding a level of complexity to the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs.[5] The first type consists of hair-like filaments covering the trunk, neck and head. These are up to three centimetres long and resemble the stage 1 "dino-fuzz" already known from theropods like Sinosauropteryx. The second type is represented by groups of six or seven downwards projecting up to 1.5 centimetres long filame These are present on the upper arm and together originating from a base plate. They resemble the type 3 feathers of theropods. The base plates are ordered in a hexagonal pattern but do not touch each other. The third type is unique. It was found on the upper lower legs and consists of bundles of six or seven ribbon-like structures, up to two cm long. Each ribbon is constructed from about ten parallel filaments up to 0.1 millimetres wide.[2]"
>3cm long hair-like filaments
>SPACED APART groups of 1.5cm long downward projecting filaments originating from a base plate.
>bundles of six or seven ribbon-like structures, up to 2cm
The dinorsaurs would look like coarse, sparsely furred mammals than fluffy birds. Basically, they would still have scales all over their bodies with small hair like feathers protruding from them or scale plates with groups of hair coming from them.
Instead, artists depict dinosaurs with large modern day flight feathers.
They are clearly going for "SHOCK" value with their illustrations. Like "WOAH LOOK HOW CRAAZZYYYYY DINOSAURS ACTUALLY LOOKED LIKE!"
>>2127036
A slightly speculative Triceratops horridus, also by Conway.
>>2127035
I do liek raptors, but at least I'd liek some decent arguments instead of this fag festival. And according to this chart, threads like this is why we're still below average.
>>2127042
holy shit that anatomy is horrible.
What the fuck.
Also
>thos spikes/guills
Fucking bombed. We dont agree anymore that he had those.
average raptorfag. Get out.
>>2127044
There is no way /tv/ is so high.
>>2127038
Kulindadromeus
> not a theropod like the illustrations, but a basal neornitischian.
> description is of the fossil a), a dead animal (and probably decomposed, maybe diseased)
>"Modern day flight feathers" have been discovered in many species, and inferred by bone markings in others (theropods only)
Do you know how fossilization and decomposition work? Have you read any actual peer reviewed articles referiing to non-avian dinosaur feathers?
>
>>2127044
>I do liek raptors
stopped reading here.
It's like having a conversation and your opponent says
>I do liek anime but...
>>2127041
You litterally used the expression in your picture,>>2127012
You are hands down the worst troll I've seen on this board, And your samefagging doesen't help you either.
>>2127038
Of the drawings and paintings posted pic related is more accurate than any of them.
They just wouldn't have the density >>2127030
or the type of feathers shown in >>2127029.
Those are literally flight feathers from modern birds. including the contour feather, filo-plumes, semi-plumes, and down feathers. None of these were present of the proto-feathers dinosaurs sported.
The closet being the ribbon like structures with very sparse parallel filaments. But they wouldn't look nearly as "compact" as a modern day birds feather would.
>>2127044
Most, if not all of the retarded posts are by one lone samefag, possibly OP judging by the style and coherence
>>2127033
postem not Drameosaurs
>>2127056
Why do I even bother with you thick-headed idiots?
Velociraptor had 14 fully formed wing feathers (aka "flight feathers") It had both down feathers, fillamentous feathers and pannaceous feathers. What's so bloody hard to understand? Most theropods (especially those in colder climes) were thickly feathered for insulation. Theropods as a rule didn't have "proto-feathers" but feathers more akin to those of modern birds. Read a fucking book. (or an article written after twothousandandfuckingten).
>>2127071
* pennaceous
>>2127047
>discovered in many species
Literally only 6 specimens have been found that have any trace of feathers and all belong in the raptor group except for one.
The Dakotaraptor in >>2127029 fossils included no trace of feathers. It's also fucking 5-6 meters long. The raptors that have been found to have "flight type" feathers are about a foot long, the size of a crow. To imply that it's simply acceptable to "scale up" a small, feathered raptor by nearly 20x is retarded.
That makes the long flight feathers of that raptor literally a foot long with it's smaller chest feathers being 4 inches long.
Considering other fossils of dinosaurs show feathers with branching filaments are only about 2cm long there is a lot of fucking logical gaps going on in that image.
>Do you know how fossilization and decomposition work
Are you dumb? The studies and description of the type of feathers dinosaurs take that shit into account.
>>2127055
>You litterally used the expression in your picture
That wasn't me dumbass.
>You are hands down the worst troll I've seen on this board, And your samefagging doesen't help you either.
You're projecting hard.
>>2127071
yeah cus those looks just like modern flight feathers.
Not to mention, again, the fucking pure size difference of a t-rex, dakotaraptor, or therizinosaurus.
Depicting those dinosaurs with large, full plumes is straight up retarded.
>>2127078
The text you copied from the wiki described the fossil imprint, it didn't take jack shit into accout. It described how the fossil actually looks.
As for the Dakotaraptor, abovesaid wikipedia says of the forearm bones:
> The humerus, the upper arm bone, is relatively long and slender. It is somewhat bent to the inside. The most notable anatomical feature is the row of very prominent bumps along a ridge on the lower edge of the ulna, one of the forearm bones. These are called ulnar papillae, or quill knobs. In birds and some other theropod dinosaurs, these bumps were spots for reinforced attachment of the remiges, or wing feathers. When quill knobs are present, this is considered a strong indication that the animal had long remiges on the wings.
So if you wanna have a chance arguing me, git gud, son.
>>2127071
not to even fucking mention all of the raptors discovered with feathers come from the late Cretaceous period. And of the feathers discovered in the mid-late jurassic were considerably more primitive. This goes against the whole claim of feathers appearing "early" by >>2126947
The type of feathers that appeared "early" are not the same ones artists depict.
I'm totally fine with little raptors being drawn as birds. But to paint a 20 foot long dinosaur in exactly the same way or a dinosaur that came 130 million years before and is 33ft long as a peacock is retarded.
The only dinosaur found with feathers that isn't a raptor has incredibly shorter, fewer, and more sparse feathers. And again, raptors do not have feathers that look like modern birds. They are getting there but are very very different.
From the beginning I have said they have had a form of feathers and my issue is with images like >>2126877 >>2126866 >>2126859 and >>2126750 There is no indication that non raptors or even larger raptors had massive fluffy plumes of feathers. While >>2125346
is probably more accurate it's still too "soft" or dense. The feather types discovered are more like long spires or coarse short hairs.
>>2127086
>quill knobs
You realize that shit also appears on cat skulls and bones right? For the whiskers on their face and on the back of their front legs. All it indicates is a filament/bristle and not large plumage.
Using the other feather types as a base there's no reason why you would assume those "flight" feathers would be completely different than all the others They would look more like hairs/bristles/whiskers with the possibility of sparse branching parallel filaments. Far from modern day flight feathers.
What dinosaur would have been the best for cuddling?
>>2127094
[spoiler]Velociraptor[/spoiler]
>>2127088
You dense motherfucker. Evolution does not work like you think it does. It isn't a "from worse to better" or constant string of improvements, Sharks have been roughly the same for well over 350 my. And modern-looking feathers have been around at least since the mid-jurassic.
"Modern feathers" were around since before Archaeopteryx.
>>2126750 is from a video game that works with several paleontologists to recreate the Hell Creek ecosystem as a scientifically accurate game. So I would expect they know their shit.
Paleontology is one of the fastest evolving natural sciences out there. Most scientists in the field agree with said drawings. The fact that you are anchored in the past (pun not intended) is nobody's problem but yours.
>>2127093
Quill knobs on cat skulls? Now I KNOW you're trolling. So fuck off.
>>2127099
>Most scientists in the field agree with said drawings.
they don't actually, but you're on a roll so keep right on going....
>>2127099
>It isn't a "from worse to better" or constant string of improvements
You actually think that's what I said?
You're the dense retard. Evolution goes from simple->complex and specialized. There's literally no reason a large dinosaur would evolve flight feathers. But I guess thinking is hard for you.
>>2127099
>Modern feathers" were around since before Archaeopteryx.
huehuehuehue
>>2127106
>huehuehuehue
he's right.
Archaeopteryx had modern flight feathers so they must have evolved some time before that.
>>2127106
> Evolution goes from simple->complex and specialized
No. Just no. If that was the case, why on fucking god's bloody green earth do we still have prokaryotes? Or sharks? Or crocodylians.
Evolution is about developing what works and keeping it the same as it is for as long as it works. Complexity is a fortunate byproduct.
>>2127114
>why on fucking god's bloody green earth do we still have prokaryotes? Or sharks? Or crocodylians.
I think the usual reasoning is that they didn't evolve. Evolution produces complexity and where it doesn't, it didn't happen.
Which isn't really true, for example when cave animals lose their eyes, evolution is reducing complexity. Or when snakes lose their limbs. Or whatever. Evolution doesn't always progress from simple to more complex.
>>2127117
That's exactly my point. Except it happens constantly, even in forms that stay apparently the same.
>>2127114
>we still have prokaryotes? Or sharks? Or crocodylians.
Why do they have legs? Why do they have eyes? Why do they have special eyelids that protect their eyes from water and other shit? Why are we smarter than chimps?
Seriously. Saying evolution doesn't go from simple -> complex specialization is ignoring all of reality. Evolution is not a lateral process. It's very very progressive.
>>2127107
Even though he doesn't know it, >>2127114
is proving exactly what my point. Smaller, dinosaurs evolved to be more birdlike and their feathers changed evolved along with them. Larger dinosaurs like Kulindadromeus had primitive feathers as their was no need for larger plumes for them to survive. As most dinos wouldn't. Painting a T-rex or Dakotaraptor with several foot long flight feathers is retarded.
So putting modern flight feathers on a non-crow sized raptor is a stretch of logic and ignores evolution altogether.
>>2127119
and it's a good point.
of the two of you, you seem to have a better grasp of evolution.
both have some solid points about feather evolution, and both are wrong about some things. Interesting reading though.
>>2127117
>Or when snakes lose their limbs. Or whatever. Evolution doesn't always progress from simple to more complex.
They specialize. The vast majority of changes from evolution make the creatures more adaptable and better suited for their environment. A creature losing it's sight or whatever isn't the norm. A snake losing it's limbs doesn't make it any less complex since it changes all around to better fit it's environment. A minor decrease at that moment in time but if past evolutionary adaptations indicate the creature is going to evolve some more and most likely it's going to become more complex as time goes on.
In the same way dinos went from large to small birdlike animals.
If evolution didn't mean progress we would all be living in the sea as pre-cellular entities.
>>2127124
Except even larger dinosaurs were quite birdlike. Theropods had wishbones and air sacs. Even sauropods had semi-pneumatic bones. In internal anatomy most dinosaurs were quite similar to birds. Some were even similar in external anatomy. Whoddathunkkit?
>>2127128
Of course evolution brings progress. All I said was that complexity is a product, not the goal of evolution, as some see it. It's good to see a sane, knowledgeable person in this madhouse of a thread.
>>2127131
>ome were even similar in external anatomy. Whoddathunkkit?
Sich as smaller raptors. As the larger dinos, from the single specimen found and we are judging literally everything from, didn't.
Sharing some features doesn't automatically make them act or look alike completely. Did you know birds process music in the same way humans do? That doesn't mean a bird is going to write mozart however. Or bats have similar hand structure of humans but we don't have loose skin connecting our arms to our bodies.
or, if you really want to get even closer, chimps are covered head to toe in fur but humans aren't. If you looked at the DNA, skeleton structure, internal anatomy, and taxonomy of a chimp you would say "yes, homo-sapiens must be completely covered in hair as well"
What i'm saying is there is a certain amount of logical connection one can make based solely on shared internal anatomy structure. Saying a t-rex had flight feathers because it has a somewhat related structure of a bird is a stretch especially since the feathers found on non-raptor dinos are more hair-like and a t-rex would have no need for flight feathers anyways.
>>2127138
>Sich as smaller raptors. As the larger dinos, from the single specimen found and we are judging literally everything from, didn't.
Somehow that sentence got fucked all to hell.
Was suppose to be something like
"The smaller raptors specimens might but the larger dinos would be more similar to the feather types found on the one and only non-raptor related fossil we have found. The fossil was are judging everything from."
Honestly I have no idea what happened to that sentence. I must have copy and pasted something weird.
>>2127138
Fun little fact. Humans ARE almost fully covered in hair. Most of it is just very small and/or sparse.
>>2127141
>Most of it is just very small and/or sparse.
Kinda like how a dinosaur might be covered in feathers but they are very small or sparse and not large fluffy plumes :^)
>>2127140
> Somehow that sentence got fucked all to hell.
No prob there. Got the gist of it anyway, As for larger dinosaurs having feathers, as I stated before, Dakotaraptor had quill knobs, so it had large pennaceous feathers and Yutyrannus' (a large tyrannosaurid) feathers are described on wiki as follows:
> The feathers were long, up to 20 centimetres (7.9 in), and filamentous. Because the quality of the preservation was low, it could not be established whether the filaments were simple or compound, broad or narrow. The feathers covered various parts of the body
So body size isn't really a determinant of feather size or sparsity,
>>2127147
Except dinosaurs don't wear clothes or make fire, so they would kind of need the insulation.
>>2127149
>he feathers were long, up to 20 centimetres (7.9 in), and filamentous. Because the quality of the preservation was low, it could not be established whether the filaments were simple or compound, broad or narrow. The feathers covered various parts of the body
and what is any of that based off? Just wild speculation? There's literally nothing to back that up especially considering the only non-raptor specimen found to have feathers had at longest 2cm ribbons with sparse filaments.
Just scaling up a crow sized raptor t-rex size is a bit... of a stretch in terms of accuracy.
>>2127150
....
>>2127138
>Saying a t-rex had flight feathers because it has a somewhat related structure of a bird is a stretch
both sides seem to miss the obvious:
quilled feathers are inferred by the presence of quill knobs, so what does the absence of quill knobs imply?
T. rex lacked quill knobs, as do all tyrannosaurids.
it's pretty unlikely they had quilled, pennaceous feathers. Yutyrannus and Dilong didn't have flight feathers or quilled feathers of any type.
>>2127154
>Just scaling up a crow sized raptor t-rex size is a bit... of a stretch in terms of accuracy.
it would probably be fine if there were any evidence that it had feathers.
the quill knobs in Dakotaraptor are scaled up from those in Velociraptor, indicating much thicker and heavier wing feathers even if we don't know that they were longer.
>>2127154
Goddammit
> Those extending from the neck measure more than 20 cm, and those
along the humerus at least 16 cm. Although feather preservation is
patchy in these specimens, as occurs even in some fossil birds from
the Jehol Group that undoubtedly had plumage covering most of the
body, the distribution of the preserved filamentous feathers in the three
specimens of
Y. huali
implies that this taxon had an extensively
feathered integument in life. This has also been inferred for
Dilong
,
and some other non-avian feathered dinosaurs
Sorry for the patchy formatting but I'm quite lazy tonight.
Source:
http://www.xinglida.net/pdf/Xu_et_al_2012_Yutyrannus.pdf
>>2127155
Flamingoes don't have quill knobs. That proves nothing. But tyrannosaurids probably didn't have pennaceous feathers.
>>2127161
yes, a secondary loss associated with flight in some birds.
you'd have to pretend this loss evolved convergently in tyrannosauroids and some modern birds.
this is much less parsimonious than saying they never existed in the lineage in the first place-
particularly since there's no tyrannosauroids of any sort with quill knobs.
>>2126909
Feathers take a lot of maintaining, the birds are always preening.
Why would having them everywhere be an advantage when the cost is high?
>>2127160
>Goddammit
Get over yourself you dumb fuck.
> undoubtedly had plumage covering most of the
body, the distribution of the preserved filamentous feathers in the three
>filamentous
This is the part I'm talking about from the beginning. The paintings depicting the dinosaurs are full on large plumes like modern birds while the fossils found of huali aren't clear enough to tell their plume type and the feathers that have been well enough preserved of the non-raptors show them to be more hair like in shape. Which I have said from the beginning is going to look more like a sparse >>2125346 rather than >>2126859 or >>2126866 or pic related.
>>2127168
>Why would having them everywhere be an advantage when the cost is high?
birds dump sulfurous waste that the kidneys can't process into feather growth.
the current hypothesis is that feathers and scales are essentially skin shitting.
>>2127174
If scientific papers can't convince you, you're hopeless. I never said tyrannosaurs had pennaceous feathers. There's no reason to say there were sparse, since the imprints show them to be quite thick. I'd post a detailed image but 4chin won't let me hoist files larger than 4Mb, so here-s a couple links:
https://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/yutyrannus_v5000_tail.jpg
https://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/027.jpg
>>2127046
This was made before /got/
>>2127236
>If scientific papers can't convince you
The papers literally say "we cannot determine plumage type of the huali fossils"
And if other non-raptor fossils have hair like feathers it's more likely that this guy is the same. There is no reason an extremely large, extremely heavy animal like that would have evolved complex full contour or flight feathers. It's not exactly cutting through the wind.
Based on it's climate the feathers are going to be "straggly" like downfeathers to maintain body heat. The longer 6 inch feathers would more likely be large bristle feathers with bottom filaments or sparse semiplume feathers with weak barbicels making them soft and hair like. These type of feathers are much better as insulation.
There is absolutely no reason why contour or flight feathers would have developed. There's just no benefit.
>>2127236
Yutyrannus isn't a "tyrannosaur."
Tyrannosaurus is a tyrannosaur.
It's easier to understand why tyrannosaurs don't have feathers when you grasp that Yutyrannus isn't one.
The amount of rage in this thread with self-proclaimed 'dinosaur experts' directing autism at each other just seals the deal with dinosaur fan hate being legit.
>>2127401
>self-proclaimed 'dinosaur experts'
not to be autistic, but
nobody itt proclaimed themselves a dinosaur expert.
stop being retarded.
>>2122731
Here is how I feel about you with your lizard dinosaur than more accurate birdlike dinosaurs.
>>2127401
>goes into every thread
>complains about "umad" rage
God you're a faggot.
![allosaurus_and_infant_by_fredthedinosaurman-d9vixe0[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AOzkSQo.jpg "allosaurus_and_infant_by_fredthedinosaurman-d9vixe0[1].jpg")
>>2122731
>exclusively likes T-rex and most of the time its based on childhood JP-experience. I think this is the most pathetic dinosaur fan. Because its can be just a child or a whiny manbaby (second most of the time because most of JP-kids grew up already)
But the greatest living palaeontologist is also the biggest T-Rex fanboy in existence.
>>2127420
>unable to read between the lines.
>autist confirmed
Congratulations.
>>2127959
That's strange, I don't recall posting that sort of thing anywhere else. You must be wrong. How does that make you feel? Are you embarrassed to mistake one anon for another anon with your failure of a brain?
>>2128231
nobody really cares if you're one shitposting faggot or a hundred.
>>2127021
>via 9gag.com
>>2128232
You are mistaken. Some people care. That is why you are better than they are, senpai. I like your hair by the way.
>>2128231
>I was only shitposting in THIS thread
>>2128250
Exactly, friend.
I like stegosauruses they are massive dicks.
>>2123417
Nah bro, most people play as rexes. There is a disproportionately large population of rexes that is just not supposed to be normal. Most rexes are fourteen year old obnoxious brats too. Mute Rex chat at all costs.
That game is cancer in general. So many fucking furries it makes me sick.
>>2128313
>So many fucking furries
What I find hilarious is that they happen to mock other players for RP and furry cringe, yet the irony is that they do it themselves because 'muh injokes'. The game is not bad though, just so much hostility against newcomers.
>>2127033
Autism
Though in all honesty, what you really want to do is post a picture of your favorite Dinosaur.
>>2127880
>>2128440
Well, if you insist.
I'm a whore, I know.
I like both the JP raptors and the real life raptors.
>>2127088
>There is no indication that non raptors or even larger raptors had massive fluffy plumes of feathers
Dakotaraptor has quil knobs on its forearms
>>2128799
It's weird to see such inaccuracies in a museum model.
>>2128897
it was probably accurate when they made it.
Dinosaur science gets paid by the headline, so what's "accurate" changes semi-annually.
>>2128897
What's inaccurate?
>>2128899
Well judging by the feathers this was pretty recent. The thing I spotted was the tail. It is a well known thing today that dinosaurs tail were stiff. This dino depiction has a freely moving tail, which was a easy fix when designing the thing.
>>2122731
so basically furries?
>>2129383
>The thing I spotted was the tail. It is a well known thing today that dinosaurs tail were stiff.
not so much with early theropods, that was a later trait.
>>2129352
The feathers, the pronated wrists, hyperextended left femur and the thing is probably off-balance forward.
all those were considered accurate for Dilophosaurus at various times in the last 15 years though.
also research from last week would seem to suggest the teeth were covered by fleshy lips.
>>2128799
Is it wrong that I was triggered more by the pronated hands than the protofeathers
>>2128440
you know exactly what your doing... Gotta go for Therizinosaurus or that unnamed giant prosauropod
>>2129923
No, that's what I saw first as well.
I don't know if we have the carpus from that guy though, so who really knows how it held its hands?
>>2129948
Looks like I spoke too soon...
There are trackways attributed to Dilophosaurus showing the hands held sideways.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004591
>>2129954
So from what I understood, the inability to pronate hands appears to be basal in theropods
>>2129974
it's not necessarily an inability, they just normally carried their hands in the clapping position.
it seems to have more to do with length of the radius and ulna, the ones with short forearms would've crossed the bones if they tried to pronate. Some could though. Raptors for example could pronate the wrist. They probably didn't run around with their hands pronated is all.
>>2129974
but your reading is correct.
One of the authors of that paper, Kirkland, holds the belief that no theropods could pronate the wrist. He cites a paper by Carpenter that actually says some could.
I believe it's a simple misunderstanding on his part but I've refrained from asking him about it. His view has caught on with the public though, mistaken or not.
Accurate depiction of dinosaur based on modern-day findings
>>2130123
Sauce?
>>2130161
a manga
>>2130161
http://imgur.com/gallery/Okqx1
>>2127044
>/an/
>not negligible
I'd rather hang out with a raptor-fag (never seen one despite how common they are?) or a furry or a weeaboo than the special kind of autistic person OP is.
At least they devote passion to liking something and post threads in forums about liking that thing, rather than hating in the fan of group. Never really understood this mentality at all.
Yes Twilight fangirls are annoying, but it doesn't bother me and I don't devote so much baseless passion in hating on them. Waste of time and won't change who they are, and they aren't harming me.
Maybe actually go out fossil hunting and hiking OP, it will drain some of that negative energy.
You know, I get it. I know people want to stay trendy and give everything feathers but most large dinos just don't. Unless they lived in cold climates like the yuty.
>>2126936
I like T.rex, always have, probably always will.
But I'm always reserved over admiting this when I'm among fellow dinosaur enthusiasts, like as a big dino nerd i'm supposed to pick something obscure and impossible to pronounce.
But I can't, I just can't. T.rex is just too perfect.
>crtl + f "anky"
>phrase not found
I don't know much about dinosaurs but I know what I like and I like these guys. Not sure if they actually have spikes but the ones with spikes are cooler.
