>largest predatory dinosaur ever>bigger specimens found all the time>recently found to have hunted and killed adult individuals of large herbivore species by biting them in the face>by far the most popular dinosaur>if you combine the popularity of the rest of the top ten dinosaurs, they’re about as popular as T. rex is on its own>has a stranglehold on media depictions in every form, in spite of the small arms>studies will specifically include rex because it increases the odds of the study being funded significantly >is responsible for a lot of interest in dinosaurs in general and helped push the field forward in many waysHow is one species so influential on the field it’s a part of?
>ruined forever
>>5106274dont forget the lips.
>>5106274The random ahh sakura blossoms are the fruitiest part of this. What were they thinking?
>>5106245That's because, in reality, animals are as cool as kids say. It's retards that want to tell you that in reality they are hecking wholesome chungusses
>>5106303On the second half of points. I mean are you not looking at your own pic? how can you see that skeleton mount and not think it is the coolest thing to ever exist?
>>5106304their arms look stupid
>>5106303>>5106304It was more rhetorical tbqh
>>5106284Chinese dinosaurs in Japan?
>>5106284>ahhHere comes my dick! Keep that mouth open wide!
>>5106245it is called REX for a reason.
>>5106303Animals don't fucking start random dino battles for the enjoyment of some 5 year old little shit, they care about being injured and don't want to fucking die.
>>5106725Yeah and we also have evidence a T. rex crushed an adult Edmontosaurus skull with its jaws. Stop being an extremist retard.
>>5106756While the edmontosaurus was aliveImportant distinction
>>5106245It's a motherfuckin t-rex
It has the most aura
>>5106756Yeah, and then the defining injury that killed an Allosaurus was an infected toe.
>>5106789Not the CBT thagomizer?
>>5106274No anon, having feathers and lips does not nullify any of the feats listed by OP
>>5106245It's hard for me to appreciate T. rex unless I'm looking at the skeleton. It was an incredibly cool animal and paleoart can't do it justice.
>>5106700Crunchy.
>>5106245My utter limp, fragile and meek twink body is collapsing on my self as we speak, spinobros....
>>5106791Sadly, that has yet to get an adaptation to make it widely known.
>>5106854I-I can’t run away fast enough, my legs are too small!
>>5106864>>5106854Kek
>>5106245that's nothing>strongest bite force of any land animal ever>potentially the best vision of any animal ever>unusually long cochlea for hearing footsteps>unusually large olfactory bulbs for smelling prey>largest encephalization of any dinosaur aside from a few small dromaeosaurs
>>5106245Was there any event similar to the theft of the Mona Lisa that contributted to it's popularity? No one cared for the Mona Lisa before the theft but now it's the most famous piece of art of human history.
>>5106854>just wants to eat fish in the marsh>gets dragged into an endless monkey dick waving competition millions of years after its deathSpino doesn't deserve this
>>5106901It being a movie star
>>5106901In the 1950s American oil companies used dinosaurs extensively to promote their companies. They only knew about like 5 dinosaurs. T. rex was the only giant predator they advertised
>>5106845it literally does
>>5106894>>unusually large olfactory bulbs for smelling prey>>largest encephalization of any dinosaur aside from a few small dromaeosaurswould be impressive except these are the same thingsolfactory bulbs are generally calculated as part of encephalization even though they don't add to intelligence at all
>>5106284>The random ahh sakura blossoms are the fruitiest part of this. What were they thinking?The oldest known fossil flowers were tree flowers similar to cherry blossoms. This fossil was from the Hell Creek formation, same place T. rex was from.Tyrannosaurs have always been illustrated alongside cherry blossoms, it's a very old and probably accurate depiction.
>>5107030Dragged into it by an Epstein client of all people.
>>5107092Notice the difference in skill and tastefulness between the two art pieces
>>5106845Good thing it didn't have feathers and lips are not a proven fact
>>5107097>lips are not a proven facteveryone forgets that Daspletosaurus skull with the face preserved.It's like the feather debate of a few years back.we already know it didn't have lips, we have fossils of it. But people are going to ignore the fossil and argue about lips anyways.
>>5107099>people who get autistic over “accuracy” ignore the actual fossilsPaleontology becoming a fandom was a mistake.
>>5106274Why is this meme still perpetuated when no palaeontologist believes it had feathers, and no modern Dino show depiction shows that.>>5106725Then why do we find dinosaurs with injuries from fights? Why did dinosaurs evolve defense mechanisms and hunting tools, just like all animals have done?Why arr you gay?>>5107301>>5107099It is because of the type of teeth it had. They were likely protected as they were not fast growing and easily replaced, like crocodiles or sharks.Lips are something found in reptiles throughout history, and mammals, and there is no reason why it wouldn't have them to protect its most useful tools. It was Hollywood that have them big shredding-curved teeth that stuck out, and it looks retarded.This t-rex looked great to me.
>>5107092Those are Magnolias.
>>5107311I could do without the cope peach fuzz and the legs seem too short for me but other than that it is a good model
>>5107082I think I know which are the other 4
>>5107311>They were likely protected as they were not fast growing and easily replaced,I see you know nothing about theropodsbroken teeth are by far the most common theropod fossil found. They broke them constantly. Every time they ateand again, we have a fossil preserving the facethey didn't have lips
>>5107740There are also fossils of growing teeth that are rubbing against the already established teeth which is pretty cool and sounds painful
>>5107605
>>5107740>>5107740>and again, we have a fossil preserving the faceWhich one is this
>>5107740>I see you know nothing about theropodsHe’s not wrong though. T. rex had a really slow tooth replacement rate compared to something like a crocodile or allosaurus
>>5107753There isn’t one
>>5106245Spinosaurus went woke, T-rex resisted the feathers.
>>5106274They're unironically cooler this way. The traditional brown lizard depiction is boring
>>5108540no they aren't
>>5108540Stop lying
>>5106245>unsubstantiated claims perpetrated by a sci-fi novel and its movie adaptation
>>5108564Jurassic park literally says none of those things.
>>5109400Ough
>>5107311>whyBecause some people think depicting an animal as less „cool“ must automatically be more accurate.Just like people are more likely to think a car is safe if it’s ugly
Please rate my reconstruction
>>5111627Ugly = accurate is so goddamn gay and retarded.It’s as if we don’t have animals that look cool right now. Or do they want to say visually pleasing animals are inaccurate?It’s like the American museum of natural history vs the field museum with their rex models. AMNH had a disgusting looking rex, while the field museum had a really cool looking rex that was actually more accurate than the ugly one.
>>5111696Animals aren't meant to look like movie monsters chud. There's no such thing as a monstrous-looking animal
>>5111717>dinosaurs couldn’t roar, modern reptiles can’t!>videos of gators roaring are readily available Do internet paleofags even look at extant animals?
>>5111729well gators and crocos dont roar like a lion, its more like a rumble, its closer to frogs, it just sounds meaner because theyre bigger
>>5111729Don't forget:>Dinosaurs couldn't roar, they would sound more like birds >Meanwhile birds:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QxIv62-rq8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB1GyHGumkQHell that vulture at the end sounds very similar to the Spinosaurus from JP3
>>5111737If that sounds comes out of a 150 pound cassowary imagine what sound would come out of an 8+ ton theropod
Anyone else have this shit on vhs back in the day? https://youtu.be/ngVMwf9yRGU
>>5111740Fucking soul
>>5111756As a kid I never realized how disjointed it is>early flash animation music video to begin with (nothing to do with the rest of the film) >Ben savage has a room full of dinosaur stuff and can't figure out what to do his school report on>FINALLY decides to make it about dinosaurs >report is due TOMORROW MORNING>goes to sleep instead of grinding out the project>dreams about breaking open two rocks with a hammer >HORROR scene of a triceratops being eaten>jump-cut to the following morning and Ben savage has completed the entire report BEFORE school>jump-cut to a claymation video that was made almost a decade prior>HORROR claymation scenes of dinosaurs eating each other with excessive gore >credits
>>5106305Lets see your arms. I bet you have stupid arms
>>5106274This new Jehova Witnesses' pamphlets look better.
>>5111768N-no I don't
>>5111696It reminds me of medieval movies all beeing shit brown because „realism means lame“>>5111717I don’t even like this framing. Nobody „designed“ dinosaurs to look cool,People just find them cool. It’s weird modern „“paleoart“““ reconstructions that designed them to look stupid.And yeah it’s almost as if the concept of a „monster“ is based on real animals that you wouldn’t want to be locked in a cage with
>>5111740I had eyewitness dinosaurs
t rex is closer related to a penguin than it is to allosaurus. can you believe this shit
>>5111845Birds existed before Allosaurus
>>5111847That doesn't change that what anon said is true
>>5106284>ahhyou have to go back
>>5111908What anon said is neither true nor false. It's an undefined statement with no meaning
>>5111927true
>>5111847Define "bird",
>>5111945a feathered biped.
>>5111945Taxa can't be defined.They can only be described
>>5111947Behold: a bird
>>5108564truth nuke: jurassic park did nothing to boost or diminish the popularity of dinosaurs, all it did was cash in on an already popular concept. i am old enough to remember a time before JP came out and already there were kids everywhere who were crazy about dinosaurs, we had dinosaur cartoons, dinosaur movies, dinosaur toys, bands named after dinosaurs, brands named after dinosaurs, well before JP came out. JP has had a negligible impact on dinosaurs as a whole and both JP lovers and JP haters vastly overstate its importance as a cultural phenomenon, and i seethe every time that fucking movie is even brought up in any sort of relation to dinosaurs.
>>5112238People can't imagine life before they were born. I think I was 21 when the book was popular and by that time I had been interested in both dinosaurs and Michael Crichton books for most of my life
>>5111717>There's no such thing as a monstrous-looking animal>posts a monstrous-looking animal
>>5107092Sovl>>5106274Sovlless
>>5112247i think that was anons point
>>5111740I had this taped off the television. it was hosted by Christopher Reeves and it had a cool scenes with deinonychus and T Rex vs triceratops https://youtu.be/gYe3r-wH_1s?si=3P05TsY-IAeecKII
>>5106894>unusually long cocowo what's this
>>5112238Cope. There was an explosion of books, toys and games trying to ride on JP's success, all copying the JP dinosaur designs. There were tons of bootleg JP T-Rex toys, the Dino Crisis games pretty much use 1:1 JP designs etc etc. Even today on supposedly accurate dino documentaries, they always refer back the dinos JP made popular like Velociraptors as landmarks for normalfags to latch on to (picrel)
>>5112315Zoomers cannot comprehend a world they missed
>>5112238good times
>>5112238>>5112315The reasonable compromise (and actual reality) is that JP made dinos about 20% more popular while becoming a household name itself.
>>5112351In my experience JP made dinosaurs less popular.Since you guys were either children or not born yet your experience is different but not more accurate
>>5112384Bait or retardationCall it
>>5112457I can prove I was an adult when JP came out.Can you?
dinosaurs were hugely popular in the 80s but then their popularity was down by the end of the decade. Jurassic Park just brought their popularity back up
>>5112384Absolutely retarded
>>5112492Do you also believe in Santa Claus and think pogs are a great investment?The way you remember your childhood isn't exactly the way adults remember it
>>5106725Evidence?
>>5112315>big hollywood production got endlessly milked because of consumerismWhy are you acting like this is some kind of gotcha? The only reason it was milkable in the first place is because dinosaurs are always popular.Also if it was the JP franchise in particular that was popular and not just dinosaurs in general, why are the later JP movies all stinkers (with Rebirth straight-up a box office bomb), while Prehistoric Planet was such a big hit?
>>5112457>>5112492Do you also think that nobody cared about cars until Cars?
>>5112315He's right, JP just created a vector into an already popular fandom.
>>5112548That’s not the same as saying something like “cars made cars less popular”.If you believe that you have brain damage.
>>5112230Fuck off Diogenes nobody has time for your shit.
>>5112614The reason JP made dinosaurs less popular is because it took a serious scientific topic and chewed it up, took away all accuracy, and turned it into a crappy monster movie for children and retards. Which is exactly what it still is. It spawned entire generations of retards that only relate to dinosaurs in the context of JP movies and still think those movies are the most significant thing to ever happen to the public perception of dinosaurs. Like most of you fools.In reality it was a remarkable step forward for CGI and a huge step backwards for the popularity of dinosaurs among adults
>>5112614If "Cars" became so overwhelmingly famous that everyone related to vehicles as movie characters and debated whether their car is a Lightning McQueen or a Chip Hicks,Then yes. That would make liking cars much less cool and much less popularOf course nobody took "Cars" seriously the same way you tards take JP seriously
Imagine if every thread on /o/ inevitably turned into a debate about how accurate "Cars" was and whether or not Pixar intended it to be an accurate depiction of how cars look and actThat's the exact state of dinosaur discussion here and most places now
What JP did do was expand public awareness of more obscure dinosaurs. Most adults probably hadn't heard of dilophosaurus or spinosaurus before the movies. In the 80s and 90s people knew maybe a dozen dinosaurs and most of them were from the Morrison and hell creek.And since JP, perceived interest spiked to the point that the number of dinosaur paleontologists went from maybe a dozen to well over a thousand. New discoveries also increased to the point where we name more dino species in an average year than were named in the 100 years prior.But this also served to decrease popularity among adults by flooding the market to the point where nobody can keep up. Instead of knowing a lot about a few dinosaurs you instead know very little about over a thousand dinosaurs. It's difficult to keep interest in such a broad topic that's constantly expanding far faster than any one person can keep up with.
>>5112650This is also an obstacle to serious discussion here or any other forum with less than a few million users.You could post a few thousand dinosaur threads without even one of them raising any serious interest or discussion just because it's all obscure and new enough that most people don't have a opinion.The topics that are broad enough got several people to know about them and have an opinion on them are invariably shallow and already debated to death hundreds of times over both here and everywhere else.Which is the real reason JP constantly comes up. Not because it's interesting or impactfulJust because everyone has seen it and has an opinion on itIt's one of the few topics everyone knows about and can debate
>>5112652Though there's not much serious debate about JPEveryone knows it's deeply inaccurate. All you can really debate is whether or not it was ever intended to be accurate
>>5106245Yahweh
>>5112655>All you can really debate is whether or not it was ever intended to be accurateAnd this is key to understanding dinosaur popularity prior to JPIf you check out Crichton's books you'll see he was a very famous and popular author before JP. And back then writing a top selling novel and having it turned into a blockbuster movie was one of the very few ways an author could get rich.He was not in the habit of writing about dinosaurs, and arguably JP wasn't even a book about dinosaurs in particular.Crichton was very simply trying to get rich, and dinosaurs were already popular enough to serve as the vehicle of his success. He cashed in on the existing popularity of dinosaurs. Some would say that helped increase popularity, some would say it ruined it.But neither was Crichton's intention. He wanted to sell books so he chose an extremely popular topic to do it.
>>5112659Crichton wrote a formulaic novel about the hubris of controlling nature and the dangers of science and technologyIt became extremely popular because it tangentially included dinosaurs, and dinosaurs were immensely popular at the timeHe previously wrote pretty much the same novel about bees and nobody cared because bees simply weren't that popular or frightening
>>5112623>it took a serious scientific topic and chewed it up, took away all accuracyI'm the guy who said JP had no impact on the popularity of dinosaurs - but at the time JP's representation of dinosaurs was cutting edge and based on the latest science, with real paleontologists informing the designs of all the animals. At the time most cartoons still had dinosaurs dragging their tails around for instance.This is also why it's ironic when soifacing dinotubers today can't stop talking about how insanely inaccurate JP allegedly is and how it's not "true to science" - at the time, it WAS true to science, truer than any other depiction.
>>5112754It was purposefully inaccurate on a number of points. The size and intelligence of raptors being the most obvious purposeful inaccuracies but by no means the only ones.When I say it's inaccurate I mean compared to reality, not to inaccurate science of 35 years ago. But even by 1990 standards the book was quite inaccurate and the movie was much worse
>>5112805By the time the movie came out we knew deinonychus wasn't a species of velociraptor, raptors were feathered, pack hunting and social behavior were pretty well debunked, dilophosaurus wasn't venomous, But you can't fix that without ruining the plot. Not that anyone wanted to fix it
>>5112808were feathered raptors actually an established fact in 1993? i know the Velociraptor quill knobs were in 2007 but i don't know if there was a find before that
>>5112754Something i really appreciate about JP over JW is that, despite all its flaws, some designs have enough small detuals that tell the people who designed them actually looked at references instead of designing the them from memory like i assume they do in JW.
>>5112864Also holy shit the quality of this image sucks
>>5112863Do you think it's an established fact now?
>>5112863Most of the reasons for thinking raptors were feathered were discovered in 1861Then they were forgotten for 106 years and rediscovered in 1967None of those reasons were quill knobs
>>5112961well dont beat around the bush, what are they
>>5112971Synsacrum semilunate carpal cannon bone reduction of the cervical and caudal series pneumaticization of the cranial cervical and axial skeleton furcula fusion of the sternal series patent acetabulum rising astragalus reduction of manual and pedal digits
>>5112971>>5112974Not to mention unpaired occipital condyle and elongation of the hyoid and recruitment of the stapes for hypoglossal support
>>5112971Raptors are just primitive birdsAll dinosaurs are
This is close enough to a paleofag general. Is the Edelman museum in South Jersey worth it? I saw picrel and it looks incredible, but the whole joint, you know, is it worth the drive from midstate New York? I can always go to the NYC natural History museum in less than half the time. But I've heard Edelman has some goooood shit.
>>5112754>This is also why it's ironic when soifacing dinotubers today can't stop talking about how insanely inaccurate JP allegedly is and how it's not "true to science" - at the time, it WAS true to science, truer than any other depiction.The greatest irony of JP is that it was actually everything the diehard paleofags said it should be. I read the novel recently and it never forgets to remind you that the dinosaurs are just animals. A view which plays a role in feeding into the illusion of control Hammond and the park staff had. The dinosaurs themselves are completely accurate for their time and even behave in ways you could easily see on a documentary made today. Like the adult raptors immediately eating a juvenile raptor that gets thrown in front of them. Or the raptors attacking one of their own after it gets poisoned and starts dying. They were portrayed as pack hunters, but definitely not in the sense of wolves that care for their own. There's also the dozens of times characters outright state how the raptors move like or remind them of birds.It's not even like the movies abandoned this animals over monsters idea either. The closest thing to a movie monster in the original trilogy is the JP3 Spinosaurus chasing bite sized snacks across an entire island. Yet somehow after that a massive narrative got made over JP as a franchise being "awesomebro propaganda". Long before JW came out and actually shit the bed with the Indominus rex, mind you.
>>5107744>>5107605Why are the legs so tiny?
>>5113417But notice how that realistic behavior you listed is stuff that animals do in real life but is perceived as "awesomebro". That is why paleofags don't like it, they would rather have detailed scenes of the raptors sleeping and taking a shit.
>>5113469I am convinced it is because they based the model on the Sue mount, not taking into account that she is crouching
>>5113472Fuck meant for >>5113464
>>5106245Jurassic Park was just that good a movie and was seen by possibly billions of people by now
>>5113417Most people who talk about the book haven’t read the book. They just see idiots rambling about the “gore” on TikTok
>>5113760That shit is so stupid. Specially when they parrot that the line "those things out there are not dinosaurs" because it was never said once in the novel.
>>5113417Yeah, the whole they were 100% fake monsters is largely a JP3 and on retcon.
>>5112238velociraptor's are how tall and covered in what?
>>5113765The one in JP3 isn't even that. Grant says it because he's tired of getting asked about Jurassic Park instead of actual fossils. The movie itself has a scene where he falls in love with dinosaurs again.
>>5106245>largest predatory dinosaur ever By what metric? Certainly not by volume or length. By mass? Mass of what exactly we can't weigh a Trex or any contemporary animal because they died so long ago bones don't even remain.
>>5106894>>largest encephalization of any dinosaur aside from a few small dromaeosaursencephalization within the range of modern reptiles, and about as clever as an alligator. Probably a bit less clever than varanids.>>5112238>i am old enough to remember a time before JP came out and already there were kids everywhere who were crazy about dinosaurs, we had dinosaur cartoons, dinosaur movies, dinosaur toys, bands named after dinosaurs, brands named after dinosaurs, well before JP came out.Yes, but their market range was a lot more limited. Before Jurassic Park, dinosaurs were for, basically, nerd kids. After Jurassic Park, the nerd kids got bullied when they said that Deinonychus was the OG raptor.
>>5112623So, it got less popular by being more popular?
>>5113417>>5113765They totally do play into them being hybrids in the novels. Both of them. In the first one I recall a scene (That was later featured in the Lost World Movie) where the T-Rex has a weird forked tongue like a snake. Like the raptor in your image. In the Lost World Novel there are straight up chameleon Carnotaurus' that play around in the lights and scare the raptors.They were always mutant freaks. They were somewhat accurate mutant freaks, because that was the idea Hammond was going for, but they were still mutant freaks.
>>5106274fake and gay
>>5112315Millennial detected. Opinion discarded.
>>5112754only the first two movies were accurate
>>5106245>largest predatory dinosaur ever>what is spinosaurus
>>5106284Dinosaurs, Japan sugoi desu yo
>>5111645im not smart enough to get this
>>5119961Not the largest predatory dinosaur
>>5111645>8/10>The tights should have been thicker
>>5117091The forked tongue the Rex and raptors have isn’t really that outlandish. For the time period in which the books were written, it’s a reasonable conclusion to think dinosaurs might’ve had sensory organs similar to modern predatory reptiles. Especially when your book was breaking new territory in portraying dinosaurs as active predators. It was probably based on monitor lizards, which are a fair analogue to use if you’re trying to portray active terrestrial predatory reptiles.The Carno and Dilo definitely have fictional elements, but there’s two important reasons for that. The first is that they play into the stories themes of uncontrollable chaos. In the first novel there’s an entire spiel about how the park staff had no idea the dilos would come out spitting venom. It wasn’t because they accidentally gave it cobra DNA, it was just an ability the species naturally had in that world. Something they had no way of predicting since fossil evidence is limited when it comes to soft tissue.The second is that it simply makes it easier to write unique and new scenes. If the dilo didn’t have venom it would functionally serve the same narrative role as the raptors. I am not saying that dinosaurs aren’t all very unique, but theirs is only so much you can do with two theropods in the same size range.Ramblings aside, the point I’m trying to make is that I wouldn’t call the jp Dino’s “mutant freaks”. They’re more like mutant animals. They have genetic modifications that exist so the plot can happen (frog DNA), but otherwise are portrayed and behave like normal animals. Or at least, what the writers idea of dinosaurs as normal animals was when he wrote the book. A far cry from the brainless killing machine movie monsters JP critics like to accuse them of being.
>>5106245Movies. Also>Masculinity so fragile it depends on inaccurate depictions of ancient animals
>>5120032>Especially when your book was breaking new territory in portraying dinosaurs as active predators.Literally all fiction involving dinosaurs portrayed them as active predators. Simply because the alternative is boring.The notion of dinosaurs as slow, dimwitted slabs of meat not good for anything literally only existed amongst a few - but never all - scientists and some - but again not all - popscience media (as opposed to popfiction). And over limited timeframes. The 1900s- 1910s scientific consensus was literally 'Active animals that birds descended from'. 1920s to 1930s made birds more distantly related, but retained them as active animals.From King Kong all the way to Dino Riders, dinosaurs were active and oftentimes intelligent threats. Arguably more intelligent in fiction than they were in reality.
>>5106245>>5106305The small arms look more primal and alien and also complement/accentuate the giant head and mouth. Design wouldn’t hit as hard if it had beefy gorilla arms or something. That would be stupid. Besides it’s square root law that is why the arms are so small, all resources for the body biologically are devoted to its main weapon, its mouth. Look at a less minmaxed creature like allosaurus that sacrifices power for a pair of bigger arms. Just does not look as cool even though they’re pretty similar.
>>5120043>Masculinity so fragileNot as fragile as cunts' face bones.
>>5120463i imagine this is intended to be a comforting back slap, but his expression looks quite threatening
>>5119961>>what is spinosaurusDEBUNKED
>>5106245Megalosaurus was better
>>5111826>I don’t even like this framing. Nobody „designed“ dinosaurs to look cool,Yes they did retard?
Other large theropod bros, how can we even compete?
Why don't more people realize the allosaurus is the better form of t rex always was the best dinosaur
>>5122601how soulless do you have to be to have no opinion on dinosaurs?
>>5122601>velociraptor still behind triceratops and non-dinosaurs like pterodactyl despite all the hypeRaptorbros...
>>5123389Shows how much impact that fucking movie franchise had (not that much)
>>5107082>In the 1950s American oil companies used dinosaurs extensively to promote their companies.interesting>>5114806>Yes, but their market range was a lot more limited.>Before Jurassic Park, dinosaurs were for, basically, nerd kids. After Jurassic Park, the nerd kids got bullied when they said that Deinonychus was the OG raptor.They only knew about like 5 dinosaurs. T. rex was the only giant predator they advertisedtrue
>>5123389>>5123419because the real-life velociraptor is a shitty little chicken, and not a lot of people know JP was written with an older taxonomy in mind where velociraptor means deinonychusand fewer still know about utahraptor which is the real deal, just as big as in the movie if not bigger.
>>5123419kind of crazy that stegosaurus was completely absent from the first movie. it's mostly the t. rex and velociraptor show. the book had way more dinosaur species.
>>5123419To be fair paleofags have tried really hard to make normies think Velociraptor is lame for over 10 years now
>bro the movie more than 3/4 people in the country have seen had no impact!Terminal contrarianism.
>>5124478then how come velociraptors don't poll better?
>>5124540>unironically doing the “no cultural impact” meme>for fucking Jurassic Park>”nooooo it did nothing because of some obtuse specific measurement I personally made up!”Velociraptor was a complete unknown before Jurassic Park. NO ONE knew what it was. And now most people can at least name it.
>>5112238>>5124540The best example of JP's huge cultural impact is not rex or the raptors. Its dilophosaurus.From the 90s to even now, Dilophosaurus is usually depicted with a frill and/or venom in almost all paleomedia outside documentaries and other content that at least aims to be educational.
>>5125164every explainer of JP points out that the real Dilophosaurus didn't have a frill and couldn't spit venom
>>5107311People are retarded. We find feathers in some dinos and now people will say all of them did have those. Sauropoda, ornithischia, doesn't matter."S-so that means T.Rex was basically le HUGE CHICKEN? OMG SO FUNNY." I wanna kill people like this.
>>5126133>now people will say all of them did have thoseNo one said this. You're making things up to be mad about.
>>5107092https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reptiles
>>5126181NTA but the overcorrection in the paleo community is insane and that is a prime example of it. Lots of people said that.
>>5126181Lots of laypeople are still under the impression that T. Rex had feathers...
>>5126181People were absolutely claiming that last decade. Actually a paper was republished specifically to get those people to shut up. Your memory can not be that bad
>>5107092That's not even close to true. There is nothing resembling Prunus from Hell Creek. And most people don't realize it but Magnolias aren't found there either. The first confirmed Magnolias are actually from the cenozoic. This belief is based on misidentifications made a century or more ago. There are magnolia relatives at Hell Creek such as Liriodendron and Archaeanthus the latter of which appears to be the ancestor of Magnolia, but Magnolia does not seem to have appeared yet.
>>5107605It's really not. It's too fat on purpose. The reconstruction of Sue with her gastralia below her belly line is a mistake and it's fucking retarded.
>>5111729They really don't. The entire belief that theropods can't pronate their hands is based on the fact that Kenneth Carpenter has never seen a goddamn crocodile in a zoo.
>>5128247“Bro the head is a terrible place for defensive weapons!”That was the moment I knew they have never looked at a live animal.
>>5112974None of these things have anything to do with birds or flying. This is the old paradigm. Once upon a time people believe that all the weird adaptations that birds have are to help them fly like having toothless beaks or hollow bones. Now we know that these are just Archosaur traits. Archosaurus had air sacs long before birds were ever thought of, and toothless beaks have evolved many many times in terrestrial animals, even in synapsids. Oviraptorosaurs developed pygostyles AND toothless beaks and they're certainly not flying.
>>5112961This is 300,000% untrue.
>>5112652This sounds like serious cope to me. For the last 30 years we have heard liberal shitheads screaming at everyone that Jurassic Park is inaccurate and everyone is obsessed with Jurassic Park and actually everything has feathers and is fat and had wattles and balloons hanging off their anuses. Now, *axchually* nobody ever cared about Jurassic Park, now that the midwits from reddit have gotten their asses so thoroughly kicked on almost every single stupid ass mythological belief they have fabricated about dinosaurs that has come out in the last 30 years so stupid faggot paleontologist can get attention for publishing tabloid bullshit. T. rex didn't have feathers and wasn't fat. Dinosaurs are cold-blooded. Dromaeosaurs were not pack hunters. All dinosaurs, in fact all Archosaurs pronate their hands. All of them.
>>5112754Jurassic Park is STILL more scientifically accurate in its reconstructions of dinosaurs than anything that's come out in the last 20 years. The creators, scientists and artists that worked on that movie were not intentionally trying to make inaccurate dinosaurs like the CIA demands now.
>>5113760This is the main problem with modern online dinosaur discussions. Most people have never read anything. And even when they do they don't really understand it. Like all the morons that read longrich's paper claiming that he proved Torosaurus is not Triceratops. There are people who have actually read this paper - possibly thousands of them who don't seem to realize that he claimed one of the largest Torosaurus skulls (nearly 9 ft long) ever found was a juvenile or that he could sex Ceratopsids - something that is widely acknowledged nobody can do. The man is an open fraud and the only reason anybody takes him seriously is for the same reason that people listen to politicians. Humans are fucking stupid. Most of them just watched his debate with Horner and saw how he sung and danced for the public like a used car salesman and that's the part that impressed them that he must be right. Anybody who actually understands what was said in that debate knows that he was full of shit in almost every single thing that he said. Not only that, but Horner directly addressed most of the things that he claimed and explained why they were inaccurate pretty succinctly. But again, because nobody understands what he was talking about people just accepted that he was wrong because he didn't sing and dance for the public as well as longrich did.95% of every single thing that is said about dinosaurs in the last 25 years is individuals with very low IQs thinking they have very high IQs trying to talk down to people who know more than them in order to defend their favorite soiance celebrities. Social media is cancer.
>>5120032The dinosaur renaissance cultists will never stop lying until they're all dead. This painting was illustrated in 1897. The so-called dinosaur renaissance was one of the greatest successes of the CIA in its entire history. People talk about operation mockingbird or MKultra, but none of them achieved such comprehensive success in in enshitifying something as the dinosaur renaissance did. Almost every single thing that is believed about dinosaurs in the modern age is a complete lie. What's worse is that we knew better before the '60s in regard to almost every single detail of the lies that are being told about dinosaurs now. They were never warm-blooded, they were never super intelligent, they were never covered in feathers, except possibly a very small number of species. And even that's suspect at this point given the sheer volume of feather fraud that's occurred in the last 30 years. Dinosaurs don't live on sand. All dinosaurs pronate their hands. Sauropods do not stick their necks out at the most energetically expensive angle possible. Nobody had neck balloons or waddles hanging off of their faces. Every single one of these beliefs is total horseshit. And none of them are backed up by paleontological evidence. Even the new cockscomb on Edmontosaurus is just a rehash of the mistaken identity of skin falling off of the corpse of one of them and being misidentified as a dewlap. And almost every single thing that has ever come out of china is fake.
>>5126181Bitch there are people still saying this shit.
>>5126181>No one said thisYes the fuck they did.
>>5126181I used to say it on /an/ many years ago.
>>5128284What do you think 'renaissance' means? It means rebirth. An acknowledgement that there was once an era of excitement about dinosaurs and a respect for them as successful creatures of a great era that had been lost over the decades. That Knight painting wasn't mysterious in the 60s and 70s. But what existed between it and the start of the Renaissance was a long era of dinosaurs being seen as useless big lizards that were doomed to die off. Look at any and all pop culture depictions of dinosaurs of them as basically vertical obese monitor lizards from the years between the ends.
Why aren’t ancient synapsids more popular?
>>5129083God i love vintage paleoart. Digital art just can't compare
>>5129186So this is true minmaxing. Just a stomach with legs.
>>5129083In this context the term "renaissance" is a propagandistic term meant to conflate the CIA's efforts to destroy paleontology with an era when people broke free of their kind and their ideology during the middle ages. It's more appropriate to call the so-called "dinosaur renaissance" the dinosaur dark age and that's what I refer to it as. An era where superstition and mythology has completely superseded empiricism. Before the dinosaur dark age people looked at mummified scales and said dinosaurs had scales and this was their shape. Now morons do thought experiments and publish papers claiming that humans can grow feathers despite being incapable of making it happen. These two ways of conducting paleontology are not even remotely related to each other. They're essentially totally different sciences. In fact the former is science, and the latter is not. And that's before we even talk about all the hoaxes. While it may be true that not everything that occurred during the 1960s is the work of the CIA, it is true that absolutely anything that has its origin in that decade is suspect.
I hate how i sort of agree with some of this guy's points but the way he says it and the conclusions he reaches are absolutely retarded
>>5129292The CIA is not making dinosaurs gay or anything like that. The Renaissance was massively important and achieved great breakthroughs even if they went too far in making dinosaurs overly mammalian at times.
>>5129295You're just not ready yet. Give it 3 to 6 months when you can no longer afford groceries or lose your insurance.>>5129296The CIA is absolutely making everything gay and stupid. Enshitification is literally a CIA op. The more retarded society is, the more difficult it is for citizens to overthrow their government. Up to a point. After that it just increases the odds.
I see paleoschizo is running his mouth again, maybe he's no longer paranoid that people are stealing his ideas off 4chan lol
>>5129305>The more retarded society is, the more difficult it is for citizens to overthrow their government.You say this like the current US Gov isn't being fucked and completely bent over backwards by the IRGC.An Iranian F-5 jet (that they probably bought when Reagan was president) was able to penetrate US airspace and bomb a US military base, kill personnel, and retreated unharmed. The last time a foreign nation did this was in the 60s. Going "THE CIA IS WHY DINOSAURS ARENT COOL LIKE WHEN I WAS A KID" as an explanation is just so you can justify it for yourself is beyond pathetic and retarded.
>>5129317What makes you think american officials care about any of this? In America war is for profit, not for winning anything.
>>5128279https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8xOFqP3XRE
>>5106274are those supposed to be feathers? why do they look like fur?
>>5128282Longrich is a hack who has stumbled onto the right side of history a couple times. but I also think he happens to be right about this. We do, in fact, have juvenile toros. Farke did a better job anyway.
>>5130904Longrich is the God of /an/. Post accordingly.
>>5130906There are better uses of your time, Nick.
>>5130906If this hack, Zietlow, Lomax, and Napoli are the faces of nu-paleo, we’re screwed folks. Utterly befucked. At least Bakker knew he was a clown and acted accordingly. Even used that position to help fund students and projects.
>>5130906>>5130904Why do people think Longrich is a chud?
>>5130923
>>5126187>Painted in the renaissance fresco secco technique>Rudolph Zallinger had never painted Dinosaurs before this and was given a six month course on Paleontology so he could paint them accuratelyWhy can't we have paleoart of this caliber today?>Includes a bunch of Synapsids and AmphibiansSo that's why Dimetrodon always gets lumped in with Dinosaurs.
Who is the biggest loser in paleontology and why is it Jack Horner?
>>5130923Brusatte is the face at the moment I believe.
>>5130982It's pretty clearly a timeline, right to left.
>>5130990>Brusatte is the face at the moment I believe.The retard who doesn't understand encephalization quotients and flat-out lies about his sources?I am genuinely horrified.
>>5130990That’s not any better. His books are just him shilling for his friends. His consulting on JW has been resulted in slightly more interesting designs, I’ll give him that. His academic work hasn’t been remarkable to me one way or the other, I guess. I don’t recall the EQ stuff >>5131034 mentions.
>>5130989Thomas Carr experienced an epic cortisol spike and massive aura loss over Nanotyrannus.
>>5130990Who is an openly admitted liar by the way.
>>5131219Too true. Screencapped from his blog back in November. I knew he would delete it.
>>5131219>Thomas Carr experienced an epic cortisol spike and massive aura loss over Nanotyrannus.There is no way to recover from that dogshit theory that only gained traction because it made Rex sound a little cooler. Imagine glazing Great White Sharks so hard you convince yourself that Mako Sharks can't exist because juveniles whites already fill the niche of medium sized fish hunting shark.
>>5131286It was funny, because we already had another good example of what an environment with a supermassive Tyrannosaur as the apex predator would look like and what that'd mean for smaller theropods: Mongolia where you had both Tarbosaurus and Alioramus living alongside one another with niche partitioning separating the two.I'm acting overly smug here, probably. But the idea that T. rex was some kind of mutant that occupied every niche above dromaeosaur level was really hard to believe even back when Nanotyrannus was not confirmed.
>>5131356>It was funny, because we already had another good example of what an environment with a supermassive Tyrannosaur as the apex predator would look like and what that'd mean for smaller theropods: Mongolia where you had both Tarbosaurus and Alioramus living alongside one another with niche partitioning separating the two.This was another good point. The only reason to believe that Rex was the only large predator in Hell Creek was purely out of a "Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence" approach. It hinges entirely on the idea that we have uncovered the majority of the fossil record (simply untrue) and Rex being the only large predator known from it's ecosystem is a glaring hole that needs a deeper explanation than "We just haven't found other predators yet".
>>5131395Rex was almost entirely a scavenger and a dumb one too, so in pursuit of “literally anything edible” it rushed into retarded deaths that would get it fossilized. It certainly attacked other animals out of animalistic impulse but mostly stole kills and waited for shit to die because it was laughably ineffective at killing.
>>5131356>T. rex filled every predator niche as it grew>no wait, we found a competing predator!>...it's so similar to T. rex it took decades to agree it's even a different speciesthis is not the win you think it is
>>5131424>this is not the win you think it isToo late to shift goalposts. The theory argued that T. rex was so special it was an exception to the norm and not even other tyrannosaur species could compete with it. Instead we found that T. rex did in fact fit into the same norm as Tarbosaurus and other large theropods. Nanotyrannus isn't even closely related to T. rex, the 2025 paper placed it as a relative of Dryptosaurus, a family of dinosaurs from another continent. It's ancestors came to Laramidia from Appalachia.
Elephants used to be bigger too. I forget the numbers but they've found some really chonky bones.Who do you think would win? T-Rex versus Gigaphant.
>>5131424This is more a testament to the stupidity of academia than anything. Nanotyrannus is different enough it’s probably not a tyrannosaurid. There were no complete juvenile Rexes, so bullshit filled that gap in our understanding. Many (Rothschild, Currie at times, Larson, Bakker, Persons) tried to push back but a cadre of people very attached to the ideas they published in the 2000s applied pressure. They were convinced their “new” model of ontogeny and niche domination just had to be correct. They could not imagine the fossil record would prove them wrong, even though it already had with the Cleveland skull and Jane (and, as another anon mentioned, by other formations with more than one large theropod taxa)so instead of eating crow and having an ounce of intellectual humility they hitched themselves to the wagon of younger researchers who will probably make similar mistakes in ten years.
>>5131430>>5131511Biologist here. You morons don't understand how science works in the modern era. Everyone is lying constantly thanks to robert maxwell and the capitalization of science. And this claim that oh this species that I want to put a new name to isn't even closely related to the one that everyone thought it was - that's the norm now. Biologists trying to name new species literally do this nearly 100% of the time, even with living species, even when it's painfully obvious they're lying. One of their favorite tricks in fact, is to list a series of species that the species that they're trying to name is similar to while very obviously leaving out the one that is most similar to the species they're naming, and which it used to belong to before they came along. They do this shit on purpose. It's just propaganda to try to make it seem like the thing they want to name is more valid than it actually is. Horner showed pretty easily and succinctly over a decade ago that nanotyrannus is very obviously T. rex. And yes, Torosaurus is also Triceratops* (there's more to that but you children aren't ready for this conversation). The current perverted obsession with trying to one up anyone from the old guard and just scream that they're wrong like a chimpanzee while also suspiciously having all of the correct political beliefs that are trendy on reddit and with corpos and governments right now is pretty disgusting. And what's worse - that's not science. In fact most of what people are doing right now that they call science is not actually science. It's just propaganda with a veneer of IFLS nonsense over top. What it does look like, interestingly however, is basic bitch mating rights fights. I.e. younger males starting shit with older males in order to get more attention and status in society. That's literally all this shit is. But we're not doing baby bottle breeding rituals here. We're supposed to be doing fucking science which is about finding the Truth.
>>5131554there's layers of complexity here they're ignoring and that doesn't matter in the slightest. No opinion voiced here is going to make an iota of difference in the real world.also the situation is constantly changing. I believe a study came out a couple weeks ago claiming that adult rex specimens are closer to 50 years old than 20 and this was largely ignored here despite:1. it being particularly germane to the nano/rex argument,and2. being something I've said on 4chan for ages, and was considered common knowledge in the 1990'sNone of the criticisms of science here matter, whether accurate or not. Mostly because the plebs on /an/ are still treating science as an authority rather than a discussion. As long as this very basic misunderstanding of what's going on continues nobody that holds the false belief is competent to add to the conversation.
>>5131561tl;dr: nobody participating in 4chan console wars is capable of adding to science because they take opposing views as personal attacks and wrongly assume scientists think the same way they do.
in fact it's almost impossible for the average 4channer to imagine anyone thinking differently than they do.that's a level of basic human understanding that's well beyond the barely-functioning solipsists here. Even more interesting, they're largely not at all curious about how other people think. They just assume everyone is exactly like them and continue on as if that were true despite the fact that they're constantly confused and outraged by other people's actions that make no sense to them.but if a person can make it to adulthood without being able to imagine how other people think there's probably no fixing them. That's a deficit so large it probably can't be overcome. That person is going to be excluded from society just because they can't read others. Even dogs are better at understanding the thoughts and intentions of others than most of the people here are.
>>5106305Said arms are actually the same size as ours, they're just on a much bigger animal.
This thread reminded me how Power Rangers had 2 dino-themed shows 10 years apart which both had a red t-rex zord and show two different concepts of t-rex from two different time periods. The newer one doesn't stand upright and doesn't drag its tail along the ground.
>>5131554Hey buddy. Horner never published in any significant capacity on the nano issue. He was a lumper and bought it. But the issue was broached by carpenter and Rozhdestvensky, but then pushed by Carr. Horner never made a significant case for this. (And we have juvenile torosaurus) This alone tells me you have no idea what you’re doing talking about. Nice try. Go look at a bug, bio boy. You haven’t touched a fossil in any serious context.
>>5131561>Mostly because the plebs on /an/ are still treating science as an authority rather than a discussion.That's because blue boards are literally plebbit, which means they're literally Eglin Air Force Base which means they're literally the CIA/mossad and its bullshit enshittification propaganda. This is the gayest, most idiotic age mankind has ever gone through. Never since the stone age has man been such a savage as now. And all so jews can continue to be worshiped. That's it. That's the only fucking reason. It's disgusting and humanity will pay for it with its life.
>>5131562You're actually wrong on two fronts. One, 4chan, despite its ruination, is still the center of culture for the entire internet. Literally millions of people around the world are picking up memes from here and spreading them to other sites or getting them from other sites once they've been spread there. It's actually a cause for concern for reddit and shitter shitlibs because they keep giving "racist dogwhistles" on accident. This also confirms the theory that 4chan has been split into localized little cells to make sure too many people don't communicate at once, which isn't really working. It's very obvious across the internet that a majority of people under 50 that actually do use the internet with any frequency are familiar with memes that originated here. Even very recent ones. But anyone that's posted in the last few years can tell that every board is slow as fuck for taking literally an entire planet's worth of traffic. That's the encouraging part. The discouraging part is that you're actually wrong about scientists too. Most scientists would fit right in on reddit. They're midwits who don't actually know shit about their own fields, who will publish literally anything to advance their careers. Incompetence has been funneled into STEM ever since they've been trying to push everyone to get into it. As I indicated earlier, the norm for scientists is to be an incompetent fucking retard that constantly lies and virtue signals the "correct" opinions. Sticking to the topic at hand this is exactly why Jack Horner has experienced such a frenetic cancellation campaign. He has "old" and "wrong" opinions and he's in the way of the younger researchers making a career for themselves specifically nick longrich, who I am convinced is personally behind the brunt of this push. Judaized american culture has taught everyone that character assassination is a really good way to advance your career.
>>5131437A gigaelephant is still less dangerous than a triceratops, innit?
>>5131595It's really strange that you believe the individual (longrich) that claimed that one of the largest Torosaurus skulls ever found - almost 9 ft in length, which is also one of the largest skulls for any terrestrial animal that's ever existed - is in his own words a "juvenile". Yet you're insisting other people don't know what they're talking about. And as has been repeated to you multiple times, that same horseshit paper also claimed that longrich could sex Ceratopsids, something nobody can do. The man is a literal open fraud. And it only strengthens my argument that fraud, idiocy and incompetence are the norm for science these days.
>>5131554The idea that dinosaurs metamorphosize half-way through their lifespans is just nonsense. No living archosaurs do anything like that.
>>5131598>4chan, despite its ruination, is still the center of culture for the entire internetLolStopped reading thereMaybe 15 years agoMaybe
>>5131604Sorry, sweaty That's just what the fossil evidence says. T. rex also didn't have feathers. And none of these animals had waddles or neck balloons. Seethe about it. Something you dumbfucks miscalculated about was that if you wanted to start generational wars in scientific fields you're all getting pretty old now too and the youngest generation are more interested in facts and now they're starting to shit all over your fraud like you shit all over the actual work former researchers did.
>>5131609Younger generations are the ones pushing for things like Nanotyrannus being a separate species. James Napoli is in his 30s.You don't even know what you're talking about. The 'dinosaur metamorphosis' theory to lump multiple similar species together based on proposed age-related physiological changes is something from the early 2000s. It has gotten a lot of pushback by younger researchers. Because it calls for a kind of skeletal plasticity that literally nothing outside of amphibia has ever had.
>>5131554>>5131603>biologist here>torosaurus is triceratopskek
>>513161430s isn't "young", grandpa and nobody is listening to you anymore. People just aren't interested in hearing lies after Corona. I'm sorry, you lost. Pack it in.
>>5131603>one of the largest Torosaurus skulls ever found - almost 9 ft in length, which is also one of the largest skulls for any terrestrial animal that's ever existed - is in his own words a "juvenile"The skull in that image isn’t anywhere near 9 ft long though, it’s only 6 ft long and is already distinctly Torosaurus. Meanwhile we have multiple Triceratops skulls over 8 ft long with no signs of morphing into Torosaurus. Not to mention Triceratops is larger than Torosaurus so the entire idea is dead on arrival
>>513161830s is absolutely young in Paleontology. Zoomers are still learning anatomy and geology right now, and Millennials are finally moving out of grad school into leading large studies. Again, you don't know what you're talking about, because the whole idea that species like Torosaurus were just older Triceratops or that Nanotyrannus was just a young T. rex, was a child of the late 90s and into the 2000s. That was pushed on and justified by starting with the conclusion that these animals were the same and working backwards to see what anatomical changes were necessary to facilitate them.
>>5131600I beg to differ. I think triceratops horns are more defensive than offensive.
>>5131603No, I’m talking about the centrosaur size torosaurus on display in Denver. With skull and post cranial material. There are other juvenile torosaurus out there too. I don’t care what longrich says. Farke’s paper was better and more thorough.
>>5131733
>>5131736
>>5131737We also don’t see any kind of late stage metamorphosis in other ceratopsids. Why does the most famous one happen to be so special? Curious.
>>5107605>>5107744>>5107092>>5106274Elephant doesn't need hair
>>5131745Elephants have a lot of hair, but it isn't thick. Baby Elephants (particularly Asian ones) make this more obvious. While adults hardly look hairy, babies are obviously hairy. What happens is just that the animal doesn't get hairier as it grows, but also doesn't lose any follicles.
>>5131038So, back in 2018, Steve Brusatte, Professor for Paleontology & Evolution at the University of Edinburgh, released a popscience book, 'The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World'. In this book, he makes the bold claim that Tyrannosaurus was about as smart as chimps:https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/book-excerpt-rise-and-fall-dinosaurs>By comparison, our EQ is about 7.5, dolphins come in around 4.0 to 4.5, chimps at about 2.2 to 2.5, dogs and cats are in the 1.0 to 1.2 range, and mice and rats languish around 0.5. Based on these numbers, we can say that Rex was roughly as smart as a chimp and more intelligent than dogs and cats.One has to wonder where he got that 2- 2.5 value from. It's not from his own work. He has done studies concerning Tyrannosaurus, and likewise studies of exticnt animals' brains (more crocodylomorphs than dinosaurs, though), and even a braincase anatomy study of (a tyrannosaurid), but no mention of EQs there.For reference: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen-Brusatte/
>>5131781Fortunately, the explicit mention of Tyrannosaurus rex' EQ value allows us to track down the study he took it from: 'Relative size of brain and cerebrum in tyrannosaurid dinosaurs an analysis using brain-endocast quantitative relationships in extant alligators' by Grant Richard Hurlburt, found in 'Origin, Systematics, and Paleobiology of the Tyrannosauridae. J. M. Parrish, M. Henderson, P. J. Currie, and E. Koppelhus (Eds.)'. It's available online, no paywall.This is, to my knowledge, the only study that assigns an EQ value of 2- 2.5 (2.42, to be specific) to Tyrannosaurus rex.And it's a good study!But this study states the following: - the EQ for Tyrannosaurus rex uses extant reptiles as a base. Since EQ values are relative to the base, not absolute, they fluctuate based on what group one compares it to. Calculate a chimp's EQ in comparison to reptiles instead of other mammals, and its EQ suddenly enters the doubledigit range. Calculate a Tyrannosaurus rex' EQ in comparison to mammals instead of other reptiles, and the value plummets to around 0.2. - the study calls its own 2.42 EQ estimate extremely unrealistic and an absurdly high-end estimate, based on unrealistic assumptions for Tyrannosaurus rex' brain structure. It never uses it again - these assumptions are unrealistic because they posit a basically avian brain for Tyrannosaurus rex. However, an endocast of its brain doesn't look avian. Rather, it looks suspiciously similar to an alligator's brain - the study concludes that Tyrannosaurus rex' EQ is within the range of modern reptiles and its brain capacity was overall a touch below the range of modern birds
>>5131783So Steve Brusatte took Tyrannosaurus rex' EQ value from someone else's study (that's fine, you're supposed to do that), robbed it of all context (in comparison to extant reptiles, so absurdly high the authors themselves call it bullshit; Tyrannosaurus rex' brain looks a lot more similar to alligators than it does to birds) and used it to claim that 'Tyrannosaurus was as smart as a chimp!' to sell his fucking book.
>>5131781A few years back we had a redo of this, and then a correction paper by another group to cut down on the overestimations. This should come from that correction paper. Dinosaurs generally where somewhere below modern birds in brainpower. But probably not any dumber than many modern mammals.
>>5131849https://dinodata.de/bibliothek/pdf_h/2024/how_smart_trex_dd.pdfHere's a proper, published version of the study.
>>5131849>a correction paper by another group to cut down on the overestimations.that's not how science works.one group says Xanother group says Yneither group is necessarily correctThe latest publication is not necessarily more accurate than prior publicationsScience is not corrected, it's debated. It's entirely possible everything you believe about this stuff is completely wrong.
>>5131852Why do you think the correction study is wrong? Be specific.
>>5131853jesus you guys are dumbI didn't say it was wrongI said you're wrong for thinking it's a correction of earlier work.
>>5131854Skepticism for its own sake is pointless. Read the methodology of the paper and why they justify their corrections to it. If you disagree with their reasoning for those corrections and don't just claim skepticism out of habit, then we can have a conversation. If you won't read a study or read a correction paper to another study, but will claim that said paper doesn't do what it sets out to do, then what grounds do you have to say anything? Either the corrections are satisfactory or they're unsatisfactory. Which do you think they are? There are studies that make open mistakes. Not everything is debatable.
>>5131858Okay thank you for your continued retardationyou are one of the reasons no scientist will post here. You're too fucking stupid to understand what's going on and too arrogant to consider you might be mistaken.
>>5131860You continue to not read anything but then waffle about how nothing is ever actually corrected in science, just debated. As though factual errors don't exist and bad analyses aren't common. The sky is purple. Shall we debate?
>>5131861another group cannot correct someone else's science.they can correct bad math, but bad math doesn't get published. the only way a correction can be published is if the original author goes back and corrects their own paper.full stop. The paper you're talking about is not a correction.just because you think it's more correct doesn't make it more correct.you are a retard, your opinion on what's correct is absolutely meaningless.
>>5131862>they can correct bad math, but bad math doesn't get published.Which did get published here if you bothered to ever read anything instead of just making posts about the philosophy of science that would sound clever to someone that doesn't actually read scientific studies ever.
>>5131854NTA but You’re being a real pretentious contrarian if you think the claim “t. Rex was as smart as chimpanzees” needs a thorough debunking and should be incorporated into your “nature of science” lecture. Your general point - that the most recent study isn’t necessarily the most correct one - is true. This is not the best hill to die on for it tho. Unless you’re committed to being fucking difficult.
>>5131875>You’re being a real pretentious contrarian if you think the claim “t. Rex was as smart as chimpanzees” needs a thorough debunkingdid you mean to put a "doesn't" in there somewhere?just because science doesn't feel right to you doesn't make it wrong. In fact science is generally counterintuitive. my general point is the only one that matters in vetting the anon for conversation. If they see science as an authority and the most recent science as always correct, there's no point in discussing the topic with them because they've already chosen a side and will passionately defend it without thought or criticism.
>>5131871>Which did get published hereyou don't know the difference between an error in math and someone using math you don't like.math errors generally get caught before publicationpeople using math you don't like happens every day and is not reason for correction. You are not qualified to judge if the methods are correct or not.
>>5131878>In fact science is generally counterintuitive.It almost never is in the worlds of biology and paleontology.
>>5131880try to get funding to publish something obvious that everyone agrees with.you guys complain constantly about contrarianism in science even though that's literally the entire job.
>>5131879>you don't know the difference between an error in math and someone using math you don't like.>math errors generally get caught before publicationYou never read the study, so what grounds do you have to actually say this? You don't know what the errors pointed out were nor why they were wrong and on what grounds. You are just rambling because you have a philosophical position to soap box about and actual reality is a step too far to engage with. Until you demonstrate any basic familiarity with the subject matter don't bother replying.
>>5131878Dude, no one is here to get vetted by you. You’re not a science communicator and this isn’t peer review. This is 4chan, get your head out of your ass. If you’re so starved for that level of discourse, attend a conference or start a fight on Naish’s blog. I bet Cau would love to get trolled by you.
>>5131882>so what grounds do you have to actually say this?you said another group corrected the paperthat tells me you don't understand what a correction is. and nothing you've said so far makes me change that opinion at all.the math wasn't wrong, you just didn't like the results. And that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion.your opinion is so weak you feel the need to bolster it with an appeal to authority and that's amusing. But it certainly doesn't make me want to hear your opinion, let alone discuss it.
>>5131884>Dude, no one is here to get vetted by younot purposefully anyways
>>5131881You mean like all the bite force studies done on T. rex skulls so that everyone can nod their head about how cool and powerful it was as though it wasn't obvious? Lots of paleontology is just confirming what people already know to be true because the field has too long of a history with wannabe contrarians.
>>5131881Maybe it shouldn’t be? Maybe that’s a fucking problem with the way science is done. Maybe a lot of bullshit gets published everyday. Do the good studies outweigh the bad? I think so, yeah. But we’re still swimming in shit.
>>5131885>the math wasn't wrong, you just didn't like the results.You are like a broken record. You don't know anything about Herculano-Houzel's mistakes or errors but have set in stone a belief that math can't be errant in a published study but instead a person could only qualitatively disagree with its implications. This demonstrates many levels of fundamental ignorance about nearly ever level of actual scientific research and how commonplace mathematical and statistical errors are in research that require corrections made by other teams. >appeal to authority We are discussing a study. Referencing that study that you are obviously too illiterate to read, is not appealing to authority. It is referring back to the topic at hand. I don't care about whatever ramble you want to go on. Your ramble doesn't intersect with reality on any substantial level. It is equivalent to a freshman philosophy of science essay where students are introduced to the concept of ambiguity for the first time. But then you never moved past that point to actual intellectual maturity. We are talking about a specific study that was linked above. If you cannot contribute any kind of dialog that is germane to the discussion and instead just want to soapbox about a pet issue, don't waste the server bandwidth with your replies. Because they are uninteresting and unintelligent.
>>5131889I would trust your disdain for science a lot more if all the "shit" science wasn't just stuff you guys disagree with on an emotional level.maybe if we had some criticism of methodology in topics we personally don't care about. Not that that can happen here because nobody is reading stuff they don't care about just to critique the methodology. in science that's literally part of the training. If you can't judge stuff you don't care about how on earth are you going to judge the stuff you do?
>>5131875>Unless you’re committed to being fucking difficultOf course he is. He’s a narcissist
>>5131895beats being born incapable of understanding the argument you're trying to disagree with.
>>5131893When I say bullshit is published by everyday I’m referring to all of science, not just paleontology. The issue is that many scientists aren’t trained well (I’d argue many paleontologists especially aren’t well trained, especially not in field work). There’re also problems with the funding ecosystem and the way publishing is incentivized. You touched on that yourself.You just wanna keep talking in circles? You’re never going to be satisfied.
>>5131897I think we all understand you. You’re very clearly miserable. >>5131895He does this in every dino thread if it goes on long enough. Can’t help himself.
>>5130977He’s seen things
>>5131898I was satisfied the instant you understood what I was saying after the other fool failed repeatedlyI may not agree with you but at least you're not completely fucking retarded like the people you apparently enjoy talking to.
>>5131897I didn’t disagree with any argument. I didn’t reply to you at all prior to this
>>5131909He saw what happened on Epstein island
>>5131590There’s been two more red T. rex zords since then anon.
Imagine larping as a biologist to try to defend Horner’s honor.
>>5131849?The study cited in >>5131783 doesn't need correction. It's not blatantly false. The science is sound and conservative, not making any sensational or outlandish claims.The way the study was treated by Brusatte however, was bullshit, but tellingly, he didn't do it in a study, he just lied about it to sell his popscience book.The study you referenced is also doing something different, in that it isn't purely relying on fossilised characteristics, but also accounting for metabolic rates, which significantly influence neuron counts.Alas, dinosaur metabolic rates appeqr to be rather variable and the factors from which we try to derive them can also contradict each other. Theropods appear to have ranged from lukewarm to pretty hot (still lower metabolic rates than placental mammals or birds, though), and not on a strictly younger = higher metabolic rate basis (e.g. it's indicated that Allosaurus' metabolic rate and resting body temperature were higher than Tyrannosaurus'), while ornithopods appear to have selected for rather low metabolic rates (but there is contradicting evidence between bone structures and growth rates), including a breathing apparatus resembling crocodiles rather than the air sack systems of sauro- and theropods.Which is one of the reasons I'm rather skeptical of the ornithoscelida hypothesis, but that's an aside.
>>5132016if T. rex lived in Montana Allosaurus lived in the Saharaeven if it was cold blooded Allosaurus lived in a much hotter climate than T. rex
>>5128284A bit excessive but yeah. It's pretty apparent that all nu-ontologists are just transexual maoist hacks that hate "traditional" for subversion purposes and the neomarxist institutions embedded in academia give them all the tools to destroy the "4 olds" against all empirical evidence and semblance of common sense. For example with all the recent Megaraptora, Shaochilong, Labocania placement controversies and the resurrection of Carnosauria as including megalosaurs it's becoming increasingly apparent that "THE CIS-GENDERED PATRIARCHY" had the right idea and TRUE tyrannosaurs were featherless and derived from within Allosauria. With basal Avialans middle Jurassic age and early Jurassic taxa like Eshanosaurus we can even assume that Tetanurae as a whole is polyphyletic and the coelurosaur/carnosaur dichotomy was right all along going at least as back as avetheropoda's split from coelophysoids and Chatterjee was right all along for going against the neomarxist dogma. IMO Delcourt's 2025 study will be the first nail to the feathered coelurosaurian tyrannosaurs dogma of XiXi-nping's demoralisation attempts.
>>5129317The CIA was ALWAYS (((marxist))) infiltrators. Every defeat for the free world brings closer to (((them))) acquiring all the social(ist) engineering and brainwashing tools they need to establish their globalist kabbal. Did you seriously think that their level of (((subterfuge))) and (((intransparency))) would EVER be in the best interest of free healthy western honor-based societies?
>>5131554I am a huge lumper but even I think you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.>Torosaurus is also TriceratopsMaybe. Depends on how you define a genus and dinofags are as you, surprisingly accurately for your conformist midwittery, pointed out overly enthusiastic to name a new genus over every single new fossil resulting to non-avian dinos having the all-time record among all known organisms for monotypic genera. Your insinuation that differences are due to ontogeny though are truly reddit-tier of science-fannery.
>>5132673You are schizophrenic, but in this particular case I wonder if you’re right. I suspect many tyrannosauroids may turn out to be megaraptorans. And in turn, I wonder if some megaraptorans may turn out to be transitional megalosaurs/tyrannosaurs. I’m somewhat partial to BCF. It may be some version of it is true after all. Chatterjee was far too sloppy, but I appreciated he was willing to go against the grain.
>>5132728For decades I was a typical "the science is settled" reddit-tier sciencefan until the recent upheavals in tetanuran (please consult the clusterfuck that Hartman, 2019 and ESPECIALLY Cau, 2024 were) and basal dino taxonomy (like silesaurs and non-neotheropod theropods) I came to understand how myopic and retarded nu-paleos actually are. They have practically forgotten that Bayesian analysis is a tool calculating probability that shits according to WHATEVER YOU FEED IT and became slaves of the method. The hypocrisy in that is that they could not even stay faithful to their probabilistic models, and had to fill the plethora of gaps with subversion of expectations all those Marxvel Cinematic Universe kiddies seem to love so much, instead of what makes more sense.I used to think that Tetanurae were an indisputable clade beyond any reasonable doubt but looking back most of their supposed apomorphies make perfect teleonomic sense for potential convergence. Additionally I thought:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds#Digit_homology issue had been shortly deboonked but under careful reaxamination all "proofs" presented seem to be guiding the data to preserve copesensus, which further leaves my previous "wild" claim open.I think the ONLY semi-solid evidence to the contrary is that Sciurumimus has a strong case of being a megalosaurid hatchling but even then from the photos I've seen online there's no convincing visuals of its tail actually having filaments other than the smooth carveout they made around it.
>>5132830I am very skeptical of Sciurumimus not because of any scientific reason based on evidence but because the fossil looks fucking weird. Why does it look so perfectly cut? is it just a bad design decision when mounting the specimen or what?
>>5132830I don’t have a background in statistics, so I’ve never felt comfortable toying around with character matrices and Bayesian analysis. It has ways felt like too much an abstraction of the actual fossils, since it’s reliant on how specific workers code and interpret and weigh characters. It strikes me as a workaround of attempting solid comparative anatomy. It’s garbage in, garbage out. Paleos wanted to be more than stamp collectors, and so they became exceptionally poor computer scientists.I imagine the reason it’s caught on so much is because it’s cheaper and more cost effective to add onto matrices and run analyses than travel, document fossils, get good figures, etc. and a great deal cheaper than actually digging. So if a student wants to do work, the cheapest thing to do is to do a phylogeny. It’s become the science itself, rather than a tool for the scientist to use. I think we’ll discover more bird/coelurosaur-like ceratosaurs that will muddy these waters. Birds must have originated in the late Triassic - early Jurassic.
>>5132839>it just a bad design decision when mounting the specimen or what?Most likely an attempt to highlight the outline of the integument they subsequently removed but desu regardless of the fawless preservation of the skeleton I do not see any obvious evidence of preserved soft as we see in let's say the largely equivalent Scipionyx.
>>5132839Good preparators are able to do that with slabs.
>>5132846Yeah, noasaurs are a fresh clusterfuck on the issue. Gods bless Delcourt and Rafael for FINALLY putting affront a dichotomy between gracile herbivores/herbivore-oriented omnivores and large hyperpredatory chonkers that ecologically ACTUALLY makes fucking sense.
>>5132847The supposed filaments are visible only under UV light. Jura from Reptilis.net provides a skeptical interpretation:>So what of these filaments? Looking at the slab that contains the specimen one would be hard pressed to see anything integumentary at all. In visible light there are very little signs of integument on the specimen. The filament discovery came from UV analysis of the slab. Many fossils will fluoresce under UV light. By mixing and matching UV wavelengths it is possible to make certain features “pop out.” Rauhut et al. accomplished this for S.albersdoerferiby using the refined techniques of their co-author Helmut Tischlinger. Tischlinger’s work has appeared in multiple paleo papers over the past few years. His talent for UV is unmatched and has allowed researchers to view structures that would otherwise be obscured by the matrix that housed them. That said, just because something appears under UV does not necessarily mean it is real (note how the specimen also shows a few vertical black stripes under UV. This was likely the glue used to hold the specimen together).
>>5132855>This brings us to the observations Rauhut et al. made on the S.albersdoerferi specimen. The authors used a variety of lighting techniques to get the structures they wanted to highlight, to pop out. In some cases one can tell that there are two different things in place. For instance the bones of S.albersdoerferi fluoresce a nice greenish colour under the UV lighting scheme. Along the tibia, vertebrae, ilium, ischium, and part of the scapula, one can see different colours popping out from the underlying bone. The trouble is determining exactly what those colours represent. The authors argued that the yellow-coloured blobs seen along the base of the tail, were indicative of skin, while similar yellow blobs on the tibia represented muscle. Perhaps there is some feature of soft tissue that would make it fluoresce this particular colour. However, when looking at the alleged filaments, they fluoresced a more greenish-blue colour. If these filaments were epidermal in nature then I don’t see why they would fluoresce a different colour from the rest of the skin. No other fossil examined under UV seems to show this type of distinction; at least none that I have read about. It seems more likely that the skin Rauhut et al. refer to is more muscle tissue on the base of the tail. This would appear to make sense as it basically looks just like the hypothesized muscle tissue by the tibia. The same could be argued for the apparent filaments above the scapular region (which fluoresce the same yellow colour as the muscle, collagen and “skin”). In that case they could be torn muscle fibres, or collagen fibres. As for the filaments themselves, it is strange that they appear to jut straight out from the bone, with no room for muscle or other soft tissue in between. (Juravenator pictured)
>>5132856>Once again, if one looks at other dinosaur specimens that are known to preserve filamentous integument (e.g., Sinosauropteryx prima, Caudipteryx zoui, Microraptor gui), there tends to be a halo a few millimeters-centimeters from the bones, indicating where the body wall ended and the epidermal covering began. The only times that the epidermis runs close to the bone are towards the tip of the tail, or at the ends of the limbs, where soft tissue thickness is usually minimal. We don’t see this in S.albersdoerferi. Instead the filaments seem to come right off the bone. Perhaps this S.albersdoerferi specimen had dried out prior to burial, though given the environment it was in this would seem unlikely.
>>5132857>Another possibility could be that these apparent filaments are actually preparation artifacts. If so that would make the discovery and description of Sciurumimus albersdoerferi very similar to the recent rediscription of Juravenator starki by Chiappe & Gohlich (2010). The biggest difference is that the alleged filaments for J.starki were much finer and could only be seen under UV using high magnification. In both cases neither specimen preserves unambiguous filaments. As it stands I would be hesitant to use either of these guys as examples of filamentous integument in theropods.
>>5132860Forgot link: https://reptilis.net/2012/07/23/feathers-on-the-big-feathers-on-the-small-but-feathers-for-dinosaurs-one-and-all/#more-912
>>5132855>>5132856>>5132857>>5132860>>5132861Sorry for not replying, had gone to sleep. Thanks for elaborating.
>>5132673 Tyrannosaurs and Allosaurs just don't have anything in common other than being bipedal supercarnivores. They're so obviously different in biology that there's no reason to try and lump them together. Carcharodontosaurs and Allosaurs make an obvious evolutionary tree and Tyrannosaurs don't fit at all in it.
I'm just a-hoping and a-praying that we get one (1) good skeleton of a derived megaraptor of any type within the decade.
>>5133083I think there are whole grades of theropods between them. Megalosaurs, Piatnitzkysaurids, megaraptorans - none of them have mapped really neatly onto the phylogenies. The Jurassic ones especially. I think there’s more work to be done.
>>5133083>and Tyrannosaurs don't fit at all in it.You are a stupid nigger that can't read or even understand cladograms in the posts you reply to and you need to either go back to Africa or swing from a tree,you mega giga double-gorilla NIGGER.
>>5133129>it's becoming increasingly apparent that "THE CIS-GENDERED PATRIARCHY" had the right idea and TRUE tyrannosaurs were featherless and derived from within AllosauriaTyrannosaurs and Allosaurs show no evidence of being closely related. Megaraptors jump around because they're all known from very fragmentary remains and every interpretation is a ritual of reading tea leaves to try and deduce the weather tomorrow.
>>5133137"In their 2025 revision of the enigmatic Brazilian coelurosaurians Mirischia and Santanaraptor, Delcourt et al. consistently supported a Proceratosauridae clade. In equal-weight phylogenetic analyses, this group also tentatively included Tanycolagreus. However, in implied-weight phylogenetic analyses Tanycolagreus grouped with Mirischia, Santanaraptor and Juratyrant close to but not within Proceratosauridae. Unlike previous analyses, they found Proceratosauridae (and the Juratyrant clade in implied-weight analyses) to be a very ancient lineage of Maniraptoromorpha and outside Tyrannosauroidea.[10]"10^https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.70085Ching chong harder, troon.
>>5133154>MN 4802-V, the holotype of S. placidus includes three mid-distal tail vertebrae, both ischia, femora, and tibiae (partial), left fibula (fragment), right astragalus, calcaneum, and distal tarsals III and IV, left distal tarsal IV, and both pes (partial). SMNK 2349 PAL, the holotype of M. asymmetrica, preserves the last two trunk and the first three sacral vertebrae as well as a few gastral elements, both ilia (partial), both pubes and ischia, right femur, left femur (partial), and right tibia (partial).We've moved up from reading tea leaves to reading the guts of a ritually sacrificed goat. Praise be to Ishtar. >Both equal and implied weight analyses resulted in broadly similar trees, with the main coelurosaur clades remaining largely consistent in their inclusivity and relations to one another. Main differences between the analyses include the number of trees found and the resulting position of some taxa at the base of Coelurosauria (including S. placidus and M. asymmetrica). The analysis using equal weights resulted in 100.000 trees (overflow) with a score of 8.403, whereas the analysis using the implied weight of k=16 produced only nine trees with a score of 286.2031. Both analyses placed S. placidus and M. asymmetrica within Coelurosauria, but in differing positions. Under equal weights, S. placidus is placed as an early branching Megaraptora, with that clade nested within Tyrannosauroidea, whereas M. asymmetrica is placed in a large polytomic clade of Ornithomimosauria (Figure 29a). With implied weight, both were found at the earliest-branching clade of Maniraptoromorpha, together with Tanycolagreus topwilsoni and Juratyrant langhani (Figure 29b). The unstable positions of S. placidus and M. asymmetrica likely result from their high amount of missing data (85.1% and 86.3% respectively) and the influence of homoplasy in the early radiation of Coelurosauria. Yeah, they could be literally anywhere. Megaraptors are too fragmentary to categorize.
>>5133156Like I said. Tyrannosaurs and allosaurs share very few defining features. They're just independently large carnivores. And megaraptors can be put wherever you want because we have fuck all for good fossils right now.
>>5133156>>5133157Ok but why does your "vagina" smell like shit and onions sauce?
