Who would win?
>>2154646
is it in/near water?
Spinosaursus could potentially drown the rex the way crocodiles do to take out large prey, but if that isn't an option, T-Rex has the high ground, being bigger wont necessarily play into spino's favor, it's just not built for land based combat against similarly sized aggressors.
https://youtu.be/M7tNqjsclhs
/thread/
>>2154651
>the objectively worst jurassic park
lel
Rex because his bite force is stronger
In water probably spino
T Rex, spino is a more specialized animal more suited to hunting its aquatic prey
Trex jaws and teeth are designed to inflict massive trauma to large prey, spino teeth and jaws are more designed to catch aquatic smaller prey, similar to a modern day gharial
>>2154646
WIPE THIS MEME FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH
>>2154646
the human
They wouldn't fight.
Spinosaurus was a fisher. It scooped up large fish in it's bill, while the T-Rex was a scavenger and they're now saying it didn't actively hunt but took down sick/injured or already dying animals or ate dead carrion.
>>2154970
T-rex being mostly a scavenger was largely debunk years ago, and so on even to this day. Even Jack Horner long refuted many of his original claims, and he was pretty much the main one lobbing that theory.
Really, it was practically an impossibility plagued with multiple issues.
Such as tyrannosaurus being a massive terrestrial animal that could only eat meat. Its size alone required large amounts of food.
All dinosaurs (especially coelurosaurs) were pretty much entirely warmblooded. Warmblood is energy expensive to maintain and require a lot of nourishment. This combined with the sheer size of tyrannosaurus made it even more necessary to eat large amounts of food at an even more consistent rate.
Animals do not just simply die near by at a consistent rate; die randomly far apart. Tyrannosaurus would have to travel miles across just to find a carcass, which would likely already be largely eaten by smaller predators (dakotaraptor, acheroraptor, nanotyrannus), multiple pterosaurs (especially quetzalcoatlus), genuine scavengers, and other tyrannosauruses that found the carcass first. This is by no means a viable living style for a tyrannosaurus to depend on, especially an entire population of them; which evidence suggest they were very common in during their reign.
Lets not forget that tyrannosaurus was the largest meat eater in its environment during its time. No other animal would have been better suited to prevent the large herbivores from over populating.
In fact, more evidence seem to confirm that tyrannosaurus almost certainly hunted triceratops, edmontosaurus, and even juvenile alamosaurus. The evidence for tyrannosaurus being a hunter is actually greater than the case for other large meat eating dinosaurs like giganotosaurus.
On a side note: Tyrannosaurus might have even hunted torosaurus (which was more likely it own genus), denversaurus, ankylosaurus, anodontosaurus, and even other tyrannosauruses.
>>2155077
not to mention it clearly showing several adaptations often associated with active hunters.
>>2155102
Such as its phenomenal vision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rtQPo4HKLY
Its very keen hearing
http://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20983/full
Image also based on its hearing
Its sense of smell is also a very useful predatory trait, as for it allow it to find food at night even through a forest (regardless if it could see or smell the prey); possibly pointing to tyrannosaurus being more nocturnal than we thought.
Even its killer set of jaws were especially advantageous for a big game hunter. This is even more the case due to tyrannosaurus prey either being fast (i.e. edmontosaurus), combative (e.g. triceratops, torosaurus, possible ankylosaurs), or just very large (juvenile alamosaurus). One bite would pretty much case instant death, or at the very least injuries so severe that death is practically inevitable.
>>2154651
All that was was a product placement for advertising and toys. Basically what Jurassic World did Indonimus rex, with the "it's bigger than a T-rex". Just a way to sell shit to retarded mongrels.
>>2154651
According to that blatantly wrong Hollywood fantasy fight, the tyrannosaurus should have won within 11secs after they first met.
The t-rex immediately initiates the fight. In a matter of seconds, the tyrannosaurus goes for the neck and slams it violently to the ground. The bite alone should have decimated the spinosaurus neck instantly without a doubt.
Tyrannosaurus jaws were specialized to cause more significant damage than any other dinosaur by a high margin. It was designed to chomp harder, deeper ands kill quicker than any other large dinosaur ever known.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-tyrannosaurus-rexs-dangerous-and-deadly-bite-37252918/?no-ist
Based on the placement of the t-rex's bite, the muscle would be reduced to mush, arteries severed, bleeding would be profuse, neck vertebrae shattered, and a massive gruesome, jagged wound would be all that was left; pretty much a quick guarantee kill.
The violent slam afterwards would just be overkill...
There never was any evidence that spinosaurus could snap the muscular neck of a tyrannosaur. In fact, that was completely made up by the film crew themselves; not at all based on any real evidence or study whatsoever.
>>2154646
Tyrannosaurus was taller, more robust, smarter, had superior precise vision, and could kill with a single bite.
One bite, one kill.
>>2154646
Are there seriously people debating this?
It is almost guarantee going to be t rex as victorious.
That is unless they fought in deep water, where the spinosaurus could pretty much drown its opponent.
>>2154646
Tyrannosaurus was pretty much near perfectly designed to dominate.
With its precise sight, robust build and killer chompers, there was really no other large predatory dinosaur that would even have a 50% chance of defeating it.
Really, the only two that even come close to rivaling tyrannosaurus was giganotosaurus and carcharodontosaurus. Neither of those two had any real advantage over tyrannosaurus outside of a very slight difference in size. They were less intelligent, significantly weaker less effective jaws, smaller weaker teeth (could easily break from the sides and could not violently jerk its enemies in its mouth for extra damage), had poor vision (eyes more on the sides of their heads), and were certainly not as robust as tyrannosaurus.
Pretty much, the animal was very fitting of the name 'Tyrant King'
>>2155210
Here is the image I meant to use with that post.
Oh, and the gap is very accurate
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/11/150495
>>2154646
Tyrannosaurus is famed for its dramatic killer jaws. It was capable of tearing off massive chunks and even limbs of its prey.
The match would really not last long at all.
>>2154646
History decided that humans won.
>>2155228
Pretty much
>>2155152
>>2155156
>>2155210
>>2155214
>>2155228
>>2155235
>>2154646
There are some studies showing that not only would tyrannosaurus tear off large chunks, smash bones or even sever limbs, but its 'signature finishing move' was evidently decapitation via ripping the heads off their foe.
http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-eat-a-triceratops-1.11650
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-tyrannosaurus-ever-battle-triceratops-95464192/?no-ist
>>2155254
Damn, that's pretty hardcore.
>>2154646
Reminder that the T. rex looked more like this, it had soft skin (like a bird), it would also move like a chicken and wasnt even half as smart as one
Skin wrapping is a crime
>>2155534
>it had soft skin (like a bird)
>it had scaly skin (like an alligator)
ftfy
>>2155544
>he thinks a T.Rex had scaly skin
What are you four?
>>2155606
>>2155544
S O F T S K I N
O
F
T
S
K
I
N
>>2155606
>What are you four?
I posted a picture of scaly T. rex skin.
here, have another in case you can't see the first one.
>>2155611
Same deal with cassowaries. I can't believe retards think they have any feathers. I mean look at this picture, they just have brightly colored skin and no feathers or scales.
>>2155612
>no feathers or scales.
>or scales.
what part of the T. rex scales I posted did you miss?
>>2155613
>being this stupid
We've known that's it's a 100% fact for a while now that they did
have feathers
>>2155620
>Yutyrannus
>Tyrannosaurus
see, we even spell them differently so it's easy for you to tell they're two different animals.
>>2154653
Lost World was worse
>>2155622
>two different animals
> in the same species
They're pretty close buddy both are tyrannosaurs and just like chickens if ones got feathers they all got em
>>2155635
they aren't the same species
they aren't the same genus
they aren't even the same family
>>2155637
>pulling stuff from your ass
Pathetic...
>>2155612
Cassowaries have feathers though...
>>2155642
Tyrannosauroidea is a Superfamily.
not a species.
not a genus.
not a family.
a fucking superfamily.
>pulling stuff from your ass
>posts a pic that proves what I said
>>2155642
>Tyrannosauroidea (meaning 'tyrant lizard forms') is a superfamily
>a superfamily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosauroidea
>>2154646
ofc human have you never played god of war
or just get a gun and aim for the head
>>2155606
We have direct evidence that tyrannosaurus definitely had scaly skin. The same can not be said about sfot-skin. Besides, likewise even the softest-skin (if any) on its body would likely be thick due to the animal's size alone.
>>2155534
Yeah, as with pretty much all dinosaurs.... Including spinosaurus and allosaurus.
Feathers were evolving with dinosaurs even long before they were truly dinosaurs.
Soft skin is also possible for all dinosaurs as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAixpQcqdU
By the way, we have direct evidence from wyrex that tyrannosaurus definitely had scales.
>>2155544
>>2155611
>>2155254
wait i always though that some of the Triceratops fossils with bite marks on them showed signs of healing, indicating T.rex actively hunting them. yet the first link says that none of the 18 fossils with bite marks show signs of healing?
what do i believe?
>>2155620
then what animal do those scaly skin imprints belong to you dunce?
>>2155716
That's not what they said. Just that there is at least one case where a triceratops seemingly had its head ripped off its body by seemingly a tyrannosaurus.
>>2154646
While they (A) lived so far apart in space-time that they'd never meet, and (B) would never engage in a fight because they're large predators (AKA the pussiest of all niches), if they DID fight my money'd be on Sexy Rexy.
Spinosaurus' face was designed to trap and immobilize big fishies. T. rex's face was somehow pre-adapted to demolish VW Bugs. The giant proto-whale-bird would end up a 50-foot miracle of evolution that sorta just ends at the neck in 15 seconds.
>>2155144
I just realized Jurassic World is literally a movie about companies and marketing and less about Dinosaurs even thought thats what the trailers will tell you
>>2155810
most scientists realize the "feathers of the gaps" idea is stupid and bound to eventually fail.
the odds are too long. You'd need magic to explain how we only found the parts without feathers.
Science doesn't care for magic.
>>2155810
>most feathery dinosaurs that weren't complete head-to-tail floof had scaly tails
I can only think of one, and last fall it was decided that it didn't have feathers.
>People on /an/ trying to argue that t Rex's did have feathers
And I thought this was one of the smarter boards
even far off relatives of the T. rex like the therozinosaurus has feathers
>>2154646
This is the closest fucking image I have ever seen of dino fuzz being on a large dinosaur. Not that completely covering shit. Unless the dino like the yuty huali lived in a colder climate of course. The fuzz is probably still too thick and large but I can see why the artist would want to make it visible. Those kind of feathers would be at most 3cm long, not the 4inches(bought the size of that guys hand) would be.
If the spino pulled the rex into water it would be able to. Odds are it would avoid any prey larger than it is.
>>2155077
large predators like the T-rex were a necessity for that environment. Without an apex predator, those huge fucking herbowhores would have fucking devoured entire forests. Those fuckers eat an insane amount of vegetation. Like, holy shit an insane amount.
Without dinos like the T-rex herbivores would have killed their entire ecosystem.
A T-rex wouldn't have hunted another T-rex unless it was necessary. But this is true for every predator. There is no reason to risk your life to such an extent unless you absolutely have to. Even spiders won't eat other spiders if there is enough prey to go around. It's what leads to those disgusting as fuck spider forests.
>>2155156
>tropical environment
>thick fur coverings
oh.....
Enjoy dying from heat stroke t-rex buddy.
>>2155534
KYS
>>2156152
like all the tropical animals with fur/feathers today
>>2155682
This faggot here I swear >>2155687
The current theory is a t-rex would be born with light feathers but lose them as it aged. In the same way an elephant loses it's hair as it ages.
>>2156155
You're too retard to factor in size you stupid fuck.
An elephant, rhino, hippo are bald as fuck for a reason.
>>2156164
lol moron
>>2156175
you have no idea about literally anything
>>2156180
Well, at least I'm not the one who is saying that dinosaurs cant have "fur" because elephants are "bald"
>>2156186
I have repeatedly said they have dino fuzz that would have light feather coverings. Maybe you're too stupid to know the definition of bald.
BALD
adjective
1.
having little or no hair on the scalp:
2.
destitute of some natural growth or covering:
3.
lacking detail; bare; plain; unadorned:
>little or no hair
>destitute of some natural covering
>little
>some
As in, they have very very little "hair". Like say, a fucking elephant you dipshit.
>>2156186
also point to where I said they CAN'T have feathers. As in, all dinosaurs can't have feathers. I would love to see where those words were typed and posted.
Also, we have been talking specifically about the T-Rex and not shit like raptors. The yutyrannus is not a T-REX and lives in a completely different climate.
>>2156214
>I have repeatedly said they have dino fuzz that would have light feather coverings
so pretty much like depicted here
>>2155156
it pretty much is the JUST haircut barely covering its head and shoulders.
I still fail to see how that would necessarily kill the t-rex.
It also pretty much also matches your definition of bald
>>2156222
>I still fail to see how that would necessarily kill the t-rex
different anon, but I don't think it would kill the T. rex.
It's just that we have skin from T. rex with scales on it, and that evidence overrules bracketing.
if we didn't have that skin then it would be perfectly reasonable to guess rex had feathers. Since we have the skin it becomes a lot less reasonable.
basically we have respected scientists who when the evidence doesn't fit their hypothesis try to ignore the evidence. A situation that doesn't generally last.
>>2156156
There's a big difference between elephantidae and tyrannosaurs...
>>2156523
true.
One is a scientific taxon while the other is a meaningless made up word used almost exclusively by the uneducated public.
or the title of a 2011 movie dealing with themes of violence and abuse, starring Peter Mullan, Olivia Colman, Eddie Marsan, Paul Popplewell and Sally Carman.
>Tyrannosaurus couldn't possibly have had feathers, it'd overheat.
It couldn't have had scales either, go wrap yourself in crocodile hide in the desert and see what happens
>>2156531
Oh I'm sorry tyrannosauridea ;)
>>2156539
it's fine.
but then we have the problem that Yutyrannus isn't in Tyrannosauridae.
>>2156538
not a terrible point.
If overheating was a problem scales presumably wouldn't cool as well as sparse feathers or even bare skin would.
Scales would protect against dehydration better though.
>>2154646
Spinowins because it can sneak up on people despite weighing 20 tons, according to JPIII at least.
>>2156538
in fact that's a really good argument. One I haven't seen yet even from professional paleontologists.
very nicely done.
I've seen a handful of original arguments on /an/ over the years, yours looks like a good one.
>>2156553
I did say tyrannosauridae, I said https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosauroidea
the words are extremely similar so it looks like I spelled it wrong
>>2156538
>>2156555
>>2156557
It could have been a lot like a cassowary(they live in hot weather) or if your suggesting it had no feathers what so ever then it's entire body would probably be like the cassowarys neck which would be pretty interesting to see
>>2156592
Didn't *
>>2154646
Not the viewers thats for sure
>>2154646
Time.
>>2156538
>>2156384
yeah, I know.
But iirc, we haven found skin of the whole trex.
>>2156557
>in fact that's a really good argument
>very nicely done
>I've seen a handful of original arguments
>yours looks like a good one
you shouldnt samefag that obvious.
It is a shitty point and nobody would jerk you off like this for that shit
>>2156713
The person that made the observation knows I'm not him.
the only reason I mention it is because a couple months back I was arguing this same topic with Holtz and a couple Chinese paleontologists on fb.
they made some very interesting points regarding climate and thermoregulation that nobody on /an/ has ever thought of on their own. Which was cool, it was something new I could bring to /an/.
but none of them stated the obvious, what that anon said.
>>2156801
just really looked like that.
I just cant see how that is such a good point, when the t-rex had scales.
There are also a lot of desert animals with scales, too.
>>2156093
was that animal really proven to have feathers, just suspected to have them?
>>2156818
OR just suspected to have them?
Sorry. I had to correct myself.
>>2156809
>>2156538
>>2156555
T rex wasn't a desert animal you fucking idiots
>>2156824
kek. nobody said that. read the thread or shut up you retard
>>2156827
Clearly there is no end to your Lies.
Toodle-pip, Loser!
>>2156827
>People honestly think that T Rex's looked like they did in Jurassic park and were reptiles
I bet you think raptors were lizards too dumb ass
>>2156843
No one said that numbnuts, Tyrannosaurus had scales, this is a known fact
>>2155611
>>2155544
As of yet there is no evidence to suggest Tyrannosaurus rex had feathers beyond the fact a small relative did. At most It's possible they may have had some fuzz like a modern elephant, likely fluffier as babies.
plus, if tyrannosaurus was covered in feathers, how the fuck would it groom itself? Other large theropods like Carnotaurus were known to be naked.
>>2156858
>Tyrannosaurus had scales, this is a known fact
on its whole body? I dont think this is a know fact
>>2156809
it would indicate that the argument from thermoregulation isn't a great one. If scales aren't significantly better than feathers for losing heat then the animal would have had a problem whether it had feathers or scales.
>>2156824
T rex's temporal and geographic ranges included large areas of desert as well as subtropical and temperate forests.
The thing lived from Mexico to Canada.
>>2156818
they're proven to have quills which are assumed to be descended from feathers.
>>2156858
>As of yet there is no evidence to suggest Tyrannosaurus rex had feathers beyond the fact a small relative did
I agree.
I also would point out that the relatives with feathers (2 of them, one very large) may not be related at all.
>>2156887
>on its whole body? I dont think this is a know fact
knowing they didn't have feathers on a portion of their body is better evidence than the fact that no feathers are known from any part of their body. Or from any of the bodies of their closest relatives. We have skin from most of the Tyrannosaurids, none of them is known to have feathers. All are known to have scales
>>2156809
>There are also a lot of desert animals with scales, too
true, but they aren't warm-blooded animals that weigh several tons.
>>2156905
>would have had a problem whether it had feathers or scales
It had at least one of those and it was alive for a long period of time, so yeah it either didnt have serious problems with thermoregulation or we have a wrong picture of the climate it lived in.
>>2156910
kek at your pic
But I dont see your point. The trex had scales, was several tons heavy, warm-blooded and probably lived in a climate that called for heat regulation wether than insulation. Having scales doesnt necessarily mean you are going to have heat death
please dont rape my childhood
>>2156921
>my childhood
I want this meme to die.
>>2157019
the childhood of some people isnt just a meme and I'm also not entirely serious
>>2156858
>plus, if tyrannosaurus was covered in feathers, how the fuck would it groom itself?
This is why no large herbivorous mammal on the planet has fur, because they can't groom themselves.
Preening is only important if you are flying, or need the feathers to be waterproof or whatever.
The t-rex came near to water to fight the spinosaursus , but the dakosaurus already ate it.
>>2156917
>But I dont see your point.
just that scales would be less effective than bare skin for cooling off, so perhaps thermoregulation wasn't that big of a problem. It would take a long time for an animal that big to cool off, but that works in reverse too. It would take a long time to heat up in the morning. Perhaps it was so large it took longer than a day to heat or cool, so everything averaged out. Gigantothermy they call it.
>>2157098
he's got a point sort of from an evolutionary standpoint. Since birds do have to preen flight feathers and we know birds evolved close to 100,000,000 years before Tyrannosaurus.
so presumably preening and preen glands were a thing WAY before T. rex existed.
>>2157098
that really cant be the reason considering the huge mammals with fur that once existed
>>2157127
>Perhaps it was so large it took longer than a day to heat or cool, so everything averaged out. Gigantothermy they call it
thats interesting, never thought of it this way.
But wouldnt that make rex a little vulnerable if he had a particular cold night or something?
I would also like to bring up the bony plates of the Stegosaurus.
Heat regulators or pussy magnets?
>>2157135
>wouldnt that make rex a little vulnerable if he had a particular cold night or something?
apparently not, they managed to survive just fine. But if you had a comet slam into the planet and blot out the sun so you had weeks or maybe months of cold nights... that would be a problem.
>Heat regulators or pussy magnets?
Well we have one example with an Allosaurus bite taken out of it, so it might have been armor to defend from something trying to snap your spine from above.
It's got a lot of blood vessels to be just armor though. Hard to say.
>>2157141
>apparently not, they managed to survive just fine
well, duh. So we are sure about how the t-rex handled his body heat, or what?
>It's got a lot of blood vessels to be just armor though. Hard to say.
I like to think of them as a cross between deer antlers and elephant ears. Defense, making the animal look bigger, sexual feature and cooling device
>>2155152
first off its a movie
2ndly you have to remember the animals of JP aren't 100% dinosaurs so much as mad science experiments and many of the animals show in 3 were very well likely experimental animals never ment for park release.
>large aggressive pterodactyls with teeth that were hunting humans
>that much smarter subspecies of Raptor
>the lone Spinosaurus which was shown to hunt for T-rexs in its territory and had the intelligence to use its arms to help snap animals necks
Its very well likely the Spino was cooked up in a lab just to see what they'd made, possibly thinking it was Baryonyx and after shit went down was left to its own devices before they ever figured out what they made.
Only thing thats certain is its survived being the lone dinosaur of its kind on an island full of T-rexs and raptors among other carnivores and not only survived but carved out a large chunk of territory for itself that most other carnivores tried to avoid
Scales on wouldn't cover its entire body just its legs and feet this is true with every dinosaur
>>2157182
>Scales on wouldn't cover its entire body just its legs and feet this is true with every dinosaur
kek
where do you come up with this shit, man?
do you like smoke a bowl and drink of fifth of jack and think to yourself,
>I'm going on /an/ to make shit up and post it!
>nobody can stop me!
What about soft tissue features like that? Is the trunk hypothesis for certain Sauropoda still a thing?
>>2157185
Is that an example or reaction?
Just bird my shit up
>>2157189
>Is the trunk hypothesis for certain Sauropoda still a thing?
no.
It never really was. It just gets dragged out sometimes to entice the public with the unknowns. Similar to the scavenger rex hypothesis.
neither idea has ever been formally published in the scientific literature afaik. Actually a lot of the things the public "knows" about dinosaurs isn't actually science.
>>2157195
Yeah, I always laughed at that one.
Just asking because I know how stubborn some scientists are when it comes to their favorite dinosaure hypothesis
I remember when people used to debate whether or not raptors had feathers and now we know that every raptor had feathers and it with be no different for the T Rex and co
>>2157205
well thats just a non sequitur
>>2157198
I think the trunk thing was actually invented by artists, not scientists. It's attributed to "one artist" in a book I have from 1980.
I don't think scientists ever seriously considered it because sauropods lack a foramen for the facial nerve in the face, and they don't show the enlargement of the nerve exit in the braincase that's seen in elephants and other animals with large, mobile face parts.
>http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/03/20/junk-in-the-trunk/
>>2157211
Thats pretty much why I always laughed about it. Having a very long neck and a long trunk would also look extremely retarded and like nothing evolution would "produce"
>>2157214
for sure.
why waste all that time and energy growing a huge neck if you could use a trunk instead?
redundant.
>>2156921
Looks more like an alien.
>>2156921
More like this
>>2154646
the human
LOL @ people who think a T Rex was a Dinosaur, it was clearly an ancient lizard that had scales covering its whole body(something dinosaurs cannot have) even its name means "tyrant LIZARD king"
>>2155544
>>2155611
You idiot those arent scales, scales have a pattern(like in pic). That is clearly wrinkled skin
>>2157411
Looks a lot more like rhinos skin or the skin a chickens neck
>>2154646
T-Rex with no doubt, Spinosaurus is a fgt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKmFo1UOIgo
>>2157411
>>2157413
oh my gosh!
you are so right!
I can't believe I didn't think of that when I called them scales!
kek
fyi, they've been viewed and described as scales by at least 5 dinosaur paleontologists in 3 different scientific papers now. You're welcome to write them all and ask them if they've ever heard of "wrinkled skin."
I'm pretty sure they'll laugh at you like I did.
>>2157514
not an argument
>>2157516
I'm not arguing.
I'm mocking.
If you want an argument (and some more mocking) publish your opinion in a journal of science. You might want to actually examine the fossils first.
>>2157526
>I'm not arguing
yeah, thats what I thought my dear shitposter
>>2157534
hit a nerve, huh?
it bothers you that when you disagree with the experts the world believes the experts, not you.
but if you took the time to become an expert you wouldn't disagree with them anymore.
anyways, my argument is that you have no personal experience with the fossils, no education on dinosaur skin and scales, no education on skin and scales of any sort,
and
people that have those qualifications have repeatedly declared your opinion false.
and that's a good enough argument to both dismiss you and laugh at you for thinking you're qualified to disagree or that your disagreement matters in the slightest so long as the only place you can voice it is here.
>>2157534
In short, Dr. Larson says they're scales, and the only way you can change that is by getting a PhD of your own and publishing a paper disagreeing with his opinion and then having your view widely accepted in the paleontological community.
get to work.
>>2157539
nice appeal to authority
nice ad hominem
>>2157547
those are both types of argument.
I thought you said it wasn't an argument?
But you'll notice I have not once personally claimed those are scales.
I merely mocked you for disagreeing with scientists who have studied the subject and have actually seen the fossils when you have done neither.
>>2157550
I dont consider logical fallacies actual arguments.
I dont think anyone should blindly parrot the opinion of someone else,
You can mock that all you want
>>2157557
lol what a fag
>>2157558
as predicted
very convincing
>>2157557
>I dont consider logical fallacies actual arguments
then you haven't taken first year college Introduction to Logic.
They are arguments.
I wasn't making an argument.
>I dont think anyone should blindly parrot the opinion of someone else
Well unless anyone in this thread is a professional paleontologist that studies Tyrannosaurus or Spinosaurus, that's all you're going to get. And I suspect most here will likely parrot the opinions of scientists rather than accept the original opinions of NEETs.
It's sad, I know. Your genius simply isn't recognized.
>>2157557
But to be fair my first thought when I saw the pics was the same as yours. It looks like wrinkled skin.
But then rather than assuming I know more than a gaggle of doctors of paleontology, I did some reading on the subject. I don't expect you to do the same though.
I'm just a little bit deeper than you, you know?
>>2157411
Those are lizard scales, not even crocodilian.
>>2157413
No, not really either.
The tyrannosaur skin impressions look more like bird scales, as seen on the foot of emus
>>2155544
>>2155611
>>2157618
Back view of emu leg
>>2157618
>>2157623
Even a cassowary's foot escapes are more identical to tyrannosaurus skin impressions.
>>2157595
>They are arguments
fair enough. But they are mostly shitty arguments that dont really make a point
like:
> the original opinions of NEETs.
It is just an ad hominem. It is even based on stupid assumptions. Maybe you are the one who needs to go to college, if you dont know why this is faulty logic
For all intenses and purposes this is a non-argument, entirely unrelated to the subject being discussed
>>2157601
>assuming I didnt read on the subject
cool, nice point again
>>2157626
Holy shit. For a second I really thought that was a mummified baby t-rex foot, because of how perfectly those scales match the. impressions
>>2157618
correct.
Larson compared them to the scales on an emu leg. Which are technically non-overlapping scutes, what he and others call "mosaic scales."
this is the most common form of scale found in dinosaurs, the second most common is the larger osteoderm or scute found in armored dinosaurs and some theropods.
>>2157628
>assuming I didnt read on the subject
very much so. If you had you'd come across a couple papers discussing that very complaint.
>>2157627
ad homs and appeals to authority are arguments, but I didn't make any arguments.
If I had said,
>T. rex had scales because Larson said so,
or
>T. rex had scales because you're an ignorant fry cook,
those would be faulty arguments.
However I didn't personally claim the animal had scales based on my own experience and expertise.
I referred you repeatedly to the people that did so you can argue with them about it. I personally have never examined the fossils and am no expert on dinosaur scales. Just like you from the looks of it.
>>2157679
>The skin impressions look more like the mosaic scales from a cassowary's foot
You are correct.
My mistake.
He compared them to an emu's foot, not leg.
https://twitter.com/petelarsontrex/status/515129719831154688
>>2157681
>I know shit about it, but I mock people anyway
I find your hubris and lack of insight amusing.
like when my kid tries to tell my auto mechanic how to fix a truck.
it's cute, and it's funny. But it's not to be taken seriously.
>>2157689
>I personally have never examined the fossils and am no expert on dinosaur scales
You are the kid in this analogy. cute and funny indeed
>>2157700
one of us has read the papers regarding this and similar finds.
the other is so deluded they initially thought *I* was the one claiming they were scales.
which is funny to me. You come into a conversation with 0 knowledge and talk some shit you pulled out of your ass and I laugh at you. It's fine.
>Saturday
>Sunday
>Monday
>Tuesday
>Wednesday (6pm)
Yeah it's still here.
Why is it still here?
How much attention has this thread diverted from real board posts?
Replies: 166
Oh.
>>2157741
>real board posts
Why are dinosaur threads so cancerous?
>>2157707
>one of us has read the papers regarding this and similar finds
If you werent lying, I'm pretty sure both of us have read them
>the other is so deluded they initially thought *I* was the one claiming they were scales
So what is it. Do you think they are scales or not? You do have an opinion, right? Of course I dont think you wrote a paper or made any findings and I never said anything like that.
>You come into a conversation with 0 knowledge
Thats not true. Please talk for yourself. Oh, you did already...
>I personally have never examined the fossils and am no expert on dinosaur scales
You keep making baseless assumptions about my person. I dont know if this makes you feel better about yourself, but it just seems like you are running out of real points to make so you resent to shitposting instead of having an actual discussion.
>>2157752
a lethal combination of
a: people who don't want to accept facts, and
b: people who are all to eager to push unproven ideas as fact
>>2157756
>You do have an opinion, right?
why would I have an opinion?
I'm just laughing at you for thinking you're qualified to have one.
even though your opinion disagrees with the experts and you obviously don't know anything about the topic you have an opinion on.
that's funny right there.
NOW HERE THIS
AN IDIOT HAS AN OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
NEWS AT 4
/4chan
Scientifically speaking, what is the cutest dinosaur?
>>2156164
Do you think megatherium was bald or furry?
>>2157762
>he keeps making baseless asumptions
ok fine. I just wanted to talk about dinosaurs and dont think scepticism is a bad thing
Have fun shitposting
>>2157762
>even though your opinion disagrees with the experts
People like you probably firmly believed in the "cosmic aether" back in the day
>>2157765
And how does a t-rex hug feel?
>>2157805
Yes, I'm sure your completely uneducated examination of thumbnail size pictures has yielded astonishing new scientific findings somehow missed by all the PhD's that have actually looked at the thing.
>>2157812
Physically not all that great, but emotionally I bet it's wonderful. Forgetting to be self-conscious about it's stubby little arms for a moment because it's so caught up in the moment trying to hug you.
>>2157148
>Defense, making the animal look bigger, sexual feature and cooling device
makes sense to me.
there's no reason it has to do just one thing.
How did the topic here turn from "who will win in a fight" to whether dinosaurs had feathers, scales, or both.
I'm not too sure.
But the answer is all dinosaurs had both scales and feathers, like modern birds.
>>2157882
all dinosaur threads here follow that track.
it's literally the only thing /an/ knows about dinosaurs.
Either way, dinosaurs are amazing with or without feathers.
>>2157825
>your completely uneducated examination of thumbnail size pictures
what?
still making baseless asumptions and pointless personal attacks. Your off-topic post are really a blast. Suddenly /sci/ looks like a much better board
>>2157832
Hey, and his arms are pretty much the same size as human arms. Maybe it is a little bit like hugging your grandpa
>KRREEEEONK
So, do we have any idea how dinosaurs sounded like?
>>2157933
the personal attacks have a point.
every time you say something stupid and wrong while calling someone else an idiot in the same sentence I'm going to spend days shitting on your ignorant face.
fuck off to /sci/, don't think I haven't seen you shitposting there too.
>>2158053
Please read a book or just keep lurking mate. You already admitted yourself that you dont know shit about the topic and all your post so far were total shitposts.
>hurr u dumb
>>2158061
I don't know shit and I know a thousand times more than you do.
you thought I was the one claiming the scales were scales. Then you pretend to have read the work of the people that actually did make the claim?
I don't even need to say it, I already know you feel stupid.
>>2158066
>you thought I was the one claiming the scales were scales
I didnt. please improve your reading comprehension
>Then you pretend to have read the work of the people that actually did make the claim?
baseless assumption again
You are running in circles. Can you say something with substance or are you going to repeat your shitty "points" over and over again?
I'm sorry if it upsets you that much when some people dare to question something. You act like there is a consensus on everything in the scientific community.
>>2158074
I assume you like the abuse, you keep coming back for more.
One more then before I go to bed:
>WAAAAH I call everyone idiots and retards and nobody will have a discussion with me!!
now really, I have to go. I'll be back to abuse you some more in a few hours.
>>2158089
(You)
>>2158066
>>2158074
>>2158089
what the fuck are you people even arguing about
>you thought I was the one claiming the scales were scales
>>2158101
Don't know man. When I look through the thread it seems like some people are way to connected to the way Jurassic Park portrayed the T.Rex and really want their dinos to be scaly not matter what.
Science "ruined" saber tooth tigers too. Are you idiots going to argue against this as well, because you liked iced age?
>>2158181
>tigers
>>2158185
Cats*
Happy?
I'm more interested in what the spino was really like
>>2158181
he looks kind of sad that way
>let me go extinct in my sleep already
>>2158193
He was actually kind the quite guy in his private life
>>2157686
So they're very likely to be reticulae?
You know what reticulae are, right?
>>2157618
>>2157623
>>2157626
Psst, hey, you know what bird scales are, right?
>>2158206
no no no
stop
It's already autistic enough in here, lets not bring semantics up in this bitch.
>>2158210
>semantics
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm bringing Evo/Devo into this.
>>2158211
Semantics is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relationship between signifiers—like words, phrases, signs, and symbols—and what they stand for, their denotation.
>>2158232
Yeah, I'm talking about how reticulata, the small tuberculate scales on the feet of modern birds, are developmentally-stunted feathers.
Bird scales are feathers that have been halted at an early stage in development. If T. rex did possess reticulata, then it was descended from feathered ancestors and would therefore most likely possess feathers on other regions of its body.
>>2158240
>Bird scales are feathers
thats exactly the kind of semantic nitpicking I was afraid of, but yeah
>>2158247
That's not fucking semantics, you nitwit.
Semantics would be arguing about whether Godzilla's back-ornamentation should be referred to as "plates" or "scutes"
>>2158248
>bird scales or feathers
And now you even want to have a semantic argument about the word "semantics".
NOPE
at least not with me. I know what it means, thanks
Why does this thing have 200 replies
THERES A FUCKING MOVIE ABOUT IT
Spino wins
>>2158325
because Jurassic Parks 2-4 adhere to scientific accuracy about as well as a week-old sticker to a teenager's forehead.
>>2158240
>If T. rex did possess reticulata, then it was descended from feathered ancestors and would therefore most likely possess feathers on other regions of its body.
which would be a terribly exciting discovery considering there's no body fossil evidence for feathers in Tyrannosaurus or any tyrannosaurid, and it would be published with a great deal of fanfare.
alas, reticulata are just as absent as feathers. Which doesn't necessarily mean rex didn't have fluffy ancestors, just that if that's the case the loss was complete.
>>2158325
Because talking about dinosaurs is fun you dumb cunt.
>>2158206
Well for starters, they are indeed scales. Not soft skin.
But bird scales differ from those of reptiles because they are made from the same materials as feathers (karatin, rather than callused skin or even bone). In essence, they are somewhat like modified feathers.
>>2158538
it's spelled keratin and reptile scales are most certainly made out of it. shut your stupid fucking mouth
>>2158544
that poor faggot gets so much abuse.
>>2158544
Huh? So that what is really the significant difference between reptilian and bird scales?
From what you are saying, it would seem feathers evolved from scales not scales evolved from feathers.
>>2158298
Feathers do not mean weak, as some people seem to be implying in this versus thread.
>>2155612
Woah wait that's skin on the neck? I thought it was feathers.
>>2158575
a few years ago, national geographic had a nice write up about feather evolution. If you could find it, it would likely make this information more digestible than anything someone will post on /an/.
>>2157214
Evolution could not produce anything because all these animals were made by God
>>2158575
reptiles use a different type of keratin in their scales than birds do.
so what you said was essentially correct. Bird scales are now thought to have independently evolved after being lost once.
feathers did evolve from scales and bird scales did evolve from feathers. Both can happen, perhaps even several times over and over.
>>2158604
Looks like its the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-keratin
>>2158604
> Phylogenetic studies of β-keratin sequences show that feather β-keratins evolved from scale β-keratins.[3] The scale β-keratins form the basal group in avians. Duplication and divergence events then led to claw β-keratin genes, and further recombination resulted in new feather and feather-like avian β-keratin genes. Evidence for these duplication events comes from the correlation of feather β-keratin clade structure with their genomic loci.[4]
they're all types of beta keratin, but there are specific different types for scales and feathers. These are commonly called feather keratin or scale keratin.
>>2158181
>implying Duane Naish's poorly written ramblings constitute anything resembling scientific consensus.
>>2158644
I think you're mixing up Duane Nash and Darren Naish.
I think most paleontologists agree with the T. rex and saber-tooth lips though. I mean, it's a pretty good point. Enameled teeth on terrestrial animals are generally covered to keep them from drying out and shattering.
>>2158650
Duane Nash of Antediluvian Salad (I misspelled the last name, my mistake) is the one who is currently harping on lippy Smilodon. I'm not opposed to the idea but Duane has a tendency to go off on a tangent and grasp at straws. I like his ideas but I won't seriously entertain them until I see actual publications with a bit of credibility back them up.
>>2158660
Oh, I don't think that was his idea. It was published here in 1998:
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1998.tb00582.x/abstract
the whole T. rex lips thing brought it back up again is all.
>>2158666
Interesting. I cannot read the paper. but perhaps you can. The abstract doesn't really talk all that much about the lippiness of the animal.
>>2158679
I don't read Nash's stuff, but it looks like he took pictures directly from that paper for his blog? art? whatever it is he does.
here's one from the author of the 1998 paper, as credited by Nash.
>>2158679
>I cannot read the paper.
I can't either on my home computer. I could probably request it free from JSTOR but I don't have time to post it or even read it atm.
>>2158687
Understandable. Paywalls are the devil and all of that shit.
That picture is of a homotherium, a felid with much smaller canid teeth (though still large by our standards).
>>2158692
>canid
*canine, my bad
>>2155534
Adults had no feathers.
>>2158604
Suddenly, I no longer think that was the case. We know dinosaurs evolved from archosaur reptiles.
I just assumed the scales on birds are actually somewhat like modified feathers because they are made from the same base material. However, as even >>2158611 they are practically the same as those found on crocodilian.
Really, looking at a gator's foot, it would appear bird scales are actually a derivative of this.
>>2157618
>>2157623
>>2157626
But dinosaurs simply had genes to turn scales into feathers.
Meaning they likely never lost their scales, but rather evolved way to adapt or diversity them.
>>2158768
Croc foot
>>2158770
Sorry, that was an American gator foot
http://www.forestryimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=5422928
>>2158768
what we know is that alligator embryos express a gene to produce feather keratin which is then shut off before birth, indicating that feather keratin was basal in archosaurs.
however that feather keratin appears in scales in alligator embryos, and the vast majority of dinosaurs are known from scaled skin rather than feathered. So we can guess fairly reliably that dinosaurs had scales containing feather keratin, rather than feathers to begin with.
which indicates that feathers evolved from scales that contained feather keratin.
however from genetic studies the current view is that bird scales are not homologous to the basal archosaur scales, the modern bird scales are composed almost entirely of feather keratin.
meaning bird scales probably evolved from feathers.
so we have a case of scales evolving to feathers and then some of those feathers turning back into scales.
>>2158823
>Fuzzy feathers may very well be basal to archosaurs as a whole, though.
perhaps.
the most recent study on the subject found they aren't though. It's possible that that study will be overturned in time as more feather fossils show up.
>>2158831
the more recent studies found that the vast majority of dinosaurs didn't have feathers. We're still missing large gaps in the fossil record in regards to this stuff
>>2158981
>the more recent studies found that the vast majority of dinosaurs didn't have feathers.
yep. This implies that feathers aren't basal in dinosaurs and that the ones on Kulindadromeus aren't related to the ones on theropods.
>We're still missing large gaps in the fossil record in regards to this stuff
Correct.
that's what science does, it takes the little bit of information we know and extrapolates it to try to fill in the gaps. If we didn't have gaps in the record this stuff would just be facts, not science.
>>2158583
Feathers do not imply weakness, many birds have very strong jaws, legs and wings however it does mean whatever has feathers has soft skin.
>>2155606
Certainly there's no evolutionary advantage for a giant fucking dinosaur which hunts gigantic fucking prey to have thick skin.
>>2159751
Don't ostriches have tough skin? Or is it just the leather that's made from it that is tough?
>>2158583
Haast's Eagle is best bird.
>>2159064
What I find curious is that if feathers and filaments in general aren't basal to archosaurs, it means that they independently evolved at least 3 separate times. Feathers, pycnofibres and whatever you'd call the ornithischian stuff.
>>2159995
once you see that losing fluff is just as difficult as gaining it, you'll notice that evolving it three times is way more likely than losing it hundreds of different times.
Once that's understood you'll also see why scales in tyrannosaurids are good evidence that they aren't related to their supposed feathery ancestors. Which is more likely, that they lost all trace of feathers, or that they never had them in the first place? Mathematically one is considerably more likely than the other.
>>2160000
Nice 60000
But they are related to they're feathered ancestors, there's too many similarities to deny it
>>2159751
Not necessarily.
Now, by "sort-skin", I assume you mainly mean bare or smooth, right? As in, without scales.
The skin on most modern birds seem to actually be specialized to be as light as possible, to most likely be more efficient at flight. In fact their skin is so thin that you can almost effortlessly slaughter them with your hands
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGogCa9Pvw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo0VQaGzU_s
The only reason why modern birds are even called AVIAN-dinosaurs is because all modern birds seem to have evolved from a flight-based ancestor.
However, larger terrestrial birds like ostriches seem to have tougher skin in comparison.
Bare skin can also be thick, which was likely the case for large dinosaurs. Though even the skin of a modern ostrich is likely thinner than the average non-avian dinosaur of similar size; likely because ostriches too evolved from an avian ancestor some time ago.
Finally, feathers actually can exist in between feathers. Meaning even a coat on say, a tyrannosaurus or allosaurus could be at least somewhat scaly from within the coat. This of course could mean there could be fuzz in between the scaliest parts of their bodies as well.
Image based on an owl's foot.
Can everyone please get back to talking about who would win?
Chances are all dinosaurs were both scaly and feather, not just one or the other.
