[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/an/ - Animals & Nature



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



So was it actually colored like this or not?
How reliable are their claims?
>>
File: 1513089203074.png (145 KB, 645x729)
145 KB
145 KB PNG
>>2565296
>>
>>2565297
Why post the brainlet Wojak?
>>
>>2565296
Every time some new dinosaur interpretation appears, it is somehow always uglier and more uneappealing than the last.
>>
Here's the article if you wanna check it out.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rex-was-ginger-freckles-feathers-11772112
>>
Looks like a tropical fowl, i like it.
>>
I'm not seeing the new Jurassic Park because the theropods are still bald and the trailer played before the best Star Wars movie already spoiled everything.
>>
>>2565296
Their feather claims are exactly what you'd expect. It's literally "muh Yutyrannus". Again. Nothing new. Same old furfaggotry.
>>
File: T-Rex was not a faggot.jpg (2.01 MB, 2000x1125)
2.01 MB
2.01 MB JPG
>>2565327
Yeah. It's also fictional. You guys can stop this retarded shit now.
>>
>>2565296
>>2565311
The artist's original rendition looks better.
Then they made it ugo in CGI.
>>
>>2565503
>>2565296
Why did they change it to look like it's covered in pubes?
>>
>>2565509
Not sure, probably featherfags complained the feathers weren't noticeable enough in the original and more accurate version.
>>
>>2565511
I mean the Rex looks Majestic in >>2565503
But it looks like an inbred tard in OP's picture.
>>
>>2565296
Yes, it is confirmed those are the official colors of T-Rex™
>>
lol how would they know it's colors
>>
>>2565875
Melanosomes
>>
didn't they have feathers
>>
>>2565911
We don't really know, the feathers are just speculation at this point.
I'm still not convinced that just because Yutyrannus had them T-Rex did too.
>>
>>2565911
no.
we have enough skin from rex to state categorically that it didn't have feathers.
>>
>>2565936
Considering the fossils were "found" China, I'm not convinced that Yutyrannus had feathers at all.
>>
>>2565411
I didn't say it was real, i just said that i liked the way it looks. I'd think the exact same thing if it was a dragon from a children's book.
>>
>>2565296
here ya go
>>
>>2565387
The director says what they showed in the trailer is only the first 57 minutes of a 2 and a half hour movie.
>>
Why does it have lips? We just discovered they didn't have any.
>>
File: the show.jpg (63 KB, 891x567)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>2566064
it looks way better in the show
>>
>>2565311
Why does that matter?
>>
>>2566185
>We just discovered they didn't have any.
not really.

all that happened is someone once again for about the 50th time in the last 100 years pointed out that the maxillary and dentary foramina on theropods closely resembles the crocodilian foramina that support ISO's (Integumentary Sensory Organs).

this isn't a new discovery, and there is no new evidence supporting the comparison. However it makes sense, they are extremely similar and would explain the presence of those foramina.

However the authors then took it a step further and said the animal didn't have lips because it had ISO's and crocs have ISO's and crocs don't have lips.

this is similar to saying the animal ran around on 4 legs because it has ISO's and crocs have ISO's and crocs run around on 4 legs.

that is to say, the conclusion doesn't follow. Just because the only animal we know of with ISO's is aquatic and lacks lips doesn't imply that because theropods had ISO's they were all aquatic and lacked lips. ISO's don't prevent the animal from also having lips just like they don't prevent it from walking on 2 feet or living on land or doing anything else uncrocodile-like that they certainly did.

so the study is a bit of a nothing burger as far as paleontologists are concerned. It's not conclusive.
>>
>>2565940
Well that’s not true either. Without further skin impressions, we cannot say T. rex did not have feathers. However, it is making it less and less likely as we discover more.
>>
>>2566237
>Without further skin impressions, we cannot say T. rex did not have feathers.
of course we can.
the odds of only scaled skin randomly being preserved from dozens of parts of a feathered animals are astronomical. It would never happen.

we can say it lacked feathers with about the same amount of confidence that we can say you won't win the powerball jackpot 16 times in a row.
>>
>>2566238
We have to acknowledge the chance is still there, regardless of how unlikely. We can say that T. rex didn’t have feathers, but we don’t know it didn’t have any on its back, head, feet or tail tip. We can confidently say, however, that it was not full body-fluffy like many hypothesize. It might just have a couple feathers and be mostly scaly.
>>
>>2566248
>We have to acknowledge the chance is still there, regardless of how unlikely
nope.

most dinosaurs that are considered unfeathered based on a single skin patch. Saying rex might have been feathered despite dozens of skin patches is special pleading.

you need to explain why T. rex deserves special treatment from science, and honestly that's not possible.
>>
>>2566253
I haven’t really said that it had feathers. The reason people might cling to the feather theory with T. rex is that they are related to creatures that we know for sure had feathers. Sauropods have no evidence of feathers, for example, but therapods do. But really I’m a neutral party on this. We can’t say for sure if it had no feathers or just a couple feathers.
>>
>>2566254
>The reason people might cling to the feather theory with T. rex is that they are related to creatures that we know for sure had feathers.
close.

but in fact if they lack feathers that's extremely strong evidence they aren't related to feathered animals.

and this gets us to the actual reason:
we don't want to embarrass the guy that said they're related. He's a very nice guy, highly respected, one of the top paleontologists in the world. Nobody is going to say he's wrong without some solid evidence.

as long as we can say it either has feathers hidden somewhere or it lost them for good reason we're going to keep saying it because nobody wants to publish something that destroys the life work of Dr. Thomas Holtz.

that doesn't change facts though. It didn't have feathers and presumably wasn't descended from feathered tyrannosauroids.
>>
>>2566255
That's not how phylogeny works.
>>
>>2566255
Oh, well it’s okay if he’s wrong. The cool thing about science is that it doesn’t matter. But what evidence do you have against a published scientist that says rex wasn’t related to feathered tyrannosaurs? How can you say for sure it did not have any feathers?
>>
>>2566258
>That's not how phylogeny works.
I'm all ears.
>>2566259
>what evidence do you have against a published scientist that says rex wasn’t related to feathered tyrannosaurs?
I and others have already published the evidence I have.
>>
>>2566266
Care to share?
>>
>>2566267
No reason to.

I spent close to 8 years explaining the evidence on /an/ and stopped when the recent study on rex skin was published. I don't need to say it anymore, it has been published.
>>
>>2566269
What do you think of this?
https://youtu.be/CxE68c9rYa0
>>
>>2566271
It was hasty and full of errors.

funny though.
>>
>>2566272
Seems like you really wanna have a scaly T. rex. That’s fine, just as long as it’s truly consistent with evidence. Keep an open mind though. One study is not conclusive fact.
>>
>>2566274
I don't want anything.
and my interest isn't in feathers, it's in the fact that the diagnoses for Allosauroidea and Tyrannosauroidea overlap strongly indicating probably polyphyly for one or both clades.

This is far more interesting to me than feathers or any other single trait. Because it would make much larger waves in science even if the public never heard about it. I'm not by any means the only person working on the problem though.
>>
>>2566275
Oh that does sound more interesting. Would you be up for explaining more here? (I apologize, I think I may have misjudged you, but this is an anonymous site where anything is possible.)
>>
>>2566277
briefly a lot of modern Tyrannosauroids have been diagnosed on cranial features that are found in Allosaurus.

particularly things like:
PM teeth with D-shaped basal cross section
pronounced fore-aft heterodonty
enlargement of the antorbital fenestra
presence of a patent jugal foramen
presence of the maxillary fenestra
fused and vaulted nasals
presence of the supraoccipital crest

and a few others I can't recall off the top of my head. Rauhut's assignment of Proceratosaurus gives an excellent example of the problem, almost every character he used to place the animal in Tyrannosauroidea is also found in Allosaurus fragilis, indicating Allosaurus is a tyrannosauroid by that diagnosis.

It's mostly boring details, but the lack of resolution and clarity is where I find opportunity. The other problem is that these things aren't confined to those two clades, but are typical derived characters in all advanced large theropods indicating they may be size related or just normal evolution in the group.
>>
>>2566277
Rauhut's Proceratosaurus was frustrating because he used relatively few character states and also incorrectly listed those same states in his tables for Allosaurus.

where it really becomes a problem though is in the case of a couple recent Chinese tyrannosauroids that were assigned based on only one character trait, D-shaped basal cross section of the PM teeth, because all that was found of the animals were teeth.

As mentioned, Allosaurus also had PM teeth with a D-shaped basal cross section, so assigning any theropod to either Tyrannosauroidea or Allosauroidea based on just that one trait is pretty shaky work.
>>
>>2566266
>>2566267
Yes please, I'd love to know
>>
So how many of you who participate in these threads researched paleontology solely for the purpose of arguing here?
>>
>>2566285
0
I got my degree in paleontology before /an/ existed.
>>
>>2566269
>bullshit detected
Ah. I See.
>>
>>2566287
keep reading
>>
>>2566283
That does sound problematic. It seems silly to assign a new discovery so quickly, seeing how they only had the teeth. So what you’re trying to figure out, if I understand correctly, is whether allosaurus and the tryannosaurs are actually in the same family? This is new info to me, so forgive me if I misunderstand.
>>
>>2566289
I'm certain they're not the same Superfamily, I'm just looking for traits that are actually unique to each while bitching about the constant use of traits that aren't.

The issue we currently have is that most theropod paleontologists see the problem but can't find an angle to fix it.
>>
>>2566288
I did, not terribly enlightening
>>
>>2566293
The seems like a pretty big hole in proper classification tho. Why would we categorize something with insufficient information? That’s like classifying a dog as a wolf simply based off of teeth.
>>
File: al roker.gif (493 KB, 245x220)
493 KB
493 KB GIF
>>2566231
>He doesn't want dinos to be sexy
>>
>>2566296
then nothing I could've said would've helped.
>>2566298
we have to classify them somewhere, and we can always change the classification later if we find more material or if the classifications themselves change.

so it makes sense to do what they did, I just want to change it. The problem is I can't improve the situation, only tear it down, which makes it worse.
>>
>>2566118
most large theropods were bald, autist
>>
>>2566301
That’s true, but why not wait until we have more info? You could put a classification down as a placeholder, I guess. That way you’re open to many different angles of what the teeth might actually belong to. I guess sponsors and scientists alike prefer conclusions like any person I guess
>>
>>2566304
yeah, and if you don't name it and assign it someone else will, so you might as well do it and have your name on it. And if the whole animal is ever found it'll probably have the same name as you gave to the tooth.
>>
>>2566304
*I meant to say placeholder classification, which would be something other than the two families that are conflicting. Probably just “therapod tooth” would be fine.
>>
>>2566306
>Probably just “therapod tooth” would be fine.
we do have a lot of those floating around, the aren't named because they're not unique in most cases. Like when the tooth could belong to a couple different species.

and that's how I look at those Chinese tyrannosauroid teeth, but I can't say which animal they actually belong to so they float in limbo. Tyrannosauroid is as good a guess as any.
>>
>>2566227
that actually looks good

how did they fuck up >>2565296
so badly
>>
>>2565911
No faggot, take your gay shit to the /emu fuckers/ general




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.