How not so long ago, all dinosaur life restorations became grotesque because of retarded zoomers' desire to subvert things. But now they have become normal again, because everyone finally realized this was garbage.
>>5137442>because of retarded zoomers' desire to subvert thingsit was x and millenials more likezoomers only entered into the job market six or so years agonot a long enough time to influence any technical level professional discourse
>>5137443By that metric, it would be the millennials who ruined them then gen x who saved them.
>>5137442>relating to dinosaurs entirely by appearance>like a child
>>5137458>literally all skin impressions from all possible body parts of Tyrannosaurus, Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, and Daspletosaurus show scales>"I MUST add feathers to my reconstruction or Trump is gonna win the election 'n sheit"
>>5137459Why does anytime someone complains about this, they act like having peach fuzz is the equivalent of pic related? Because you don't hear anyone talk like this about fossil elephants (that aren't mammoths) having hair.
It is 2016. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2017. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2018. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2019. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2020. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2021. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2022. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2023. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2024. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2025. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.It is 2026. I log into 4chan and see people arguing about feathers on dinosaurs.
>>5137459Tarbosaurus too. Don't forget about Tarbosaurus
>>5137459Tarbosaurus too. Don't forget about Tarbosaurus>>5137483Because 10 years ago people were unironically parading this reconstruction as the most accurate in existence and claiming depicting T. rex without feathers was Jurassic Park fanboy nonsense. Which you already knew of course.
>>5137508>>5137509I have no idea why the first part was sent as two different posts but ok
>>5137442Prehistoric Kingdom T-Rex is the best, most modern and accurate reconstruction so far. And what a surprise - it looks more classic than the previous decade reconstructions.
>>5137517Colouration is also awesome, btw. Unlike those cursed rainbow Tumblr colorations.
>>5137459Albertosaurus is also finally got its normal look on Wiki
>>5137442>i would rather people tell me what I want to hear than the truth
Paleoart is for children. Grow up and look at real fossils.
>>5137498The funny part is it's the same people
>>5137546>You've spent years of your life with a lunatic who thinks all Chinese fossils are forgeries>You are going to spend years more
i hope elaphrosaurus will get some good art, id love to see that
>>5137509>peopleyou mean just trey
>>5137459
>>5137498>log into>4chan
>>5137459Hopefully soon paleontology will also be past its hipster phase of coelurosaurian tyrannosaurs.>>5137509>peopleNo.
>>5137458>Race swapping in movies doesn't matter unless they're doing it against shitlibs like me! This is you. Don't worry, we will never forget or forgive what the cultists of the dinosaur renaissance did to paleontology for 70 years. We will drag your names through the mud for as long as human civilization still exists. I will make sure of it. You did this shit intentionally. You spread active disinformation for a good 30 years trying to make dinosaurs gay, trying to make dinosaurs trans, trying to "demasculinize" dinosaurs, allowing third worlders to make up insane stories and hoaxes about dinosaurs and never calling them out on it, fabricating the most fucking retarded and obviously untruth theories about dinosaurs so you could advance your own careers. That shit stops now. No more and never again. People have had enough.
older dinosaurs like dilophsaur and allosaurus had no feathers only newer dinosaurs like t rex did because they are closer related to modern day birds than the past era dinosaurs
>>5137459>>5137508Almost ALL theropods have only scales, if we have any information about their integument at all. And every single large theropod has ONLY scales except for the Proceratosaurids in China (shocking, I know). It's only a very small group that possibly has feathers and that group is almost exclusively found in china and mongolia (with attested feathers). Only two theropods in history outside of china have ever been found with feathers: Archaeopteryx and Ornithomimus. And I'm highly suspicious of the latter, since these feathers were only discovered well into the heyday of the death of science and the replication crisis. Everything else is base speculation, wild fantasizing and fraud. Any Ornithischians with feathers are either mistaken identity or outright fraud. Ornithischians do not have feathers. Not only that but we know that feathers are not an ancestral trait in dinosaurs because the earliest dinosaurs have dorsal osteoderms, something that doesn't exactly go well with feathers. There's also a reason to doubt whether pterosaurs had pycnofibers either. And pterosaurs are absolutely not archosaurs. They have far too many divergent anatomical differences. Wrong teeth, wrong cervical vertebral count, possibly wrong manual claw count, no mandibular fenestra (though many authors have tried to hallucinate one in shattered jaws).
>>5137642>>people>No.Yes. Unless you are saying they aren't people in which case based
>>5137534Hmmm that's weird because actual paleontologists use disinfo paleoart from internet famous paleo "artists" all the time. I've seen fucking brian engh's work in multiple papers. I've seen papers with feathered Herrerasaurids. Pic related is the cover of a book by a paleontologist. Now I assure you he damn well knows that Hadrosaurs do not have fucking feathers. But he also knows that that cover art's probably going to sell more books because of controversy like a tabloid. So no, as we have discussed many times before, paleontologists are not free of the blame here. And I must repeat, the fact that these arguments sound EXACTLY like the Hollywood arguments that shills give when they get their asses kicked about all the unpopular choices in movies and TV shows that cause complete failure means that all of this stinks of the same source: the CIA. No point even trying to deny it at this point.
>>5137517They also didn't make it obese. Notice how the knees aren't placed in the middle of its torso
>>5137680>A feathered fucking multi-ton hadrosaurIt's all so tiresome
>>5137680>I've seen papers with feathered HerrerasauridsThere is nothing wrong with this lol
>>5137520Now if we can just get them to stop putting such thick lips on theropods, get them to stop putting the hands backwards on dinosaurs, and make the tails thicker like they're supposed to be we'll be set.I am so proud to have gotten to be a part of cleansing the world of featherfaggotry with my incessant hatred and bile. We should all celebrate. We've achieved a great victory here.
>>5137566All Chinese fossils are literally forgeries though. Mamenchisaurs aren't even physically possible animals.
>>5137673Why would they be? If birds evolved 150mya then they would be significantly more related to theropods who were contemporary with the first birds rather than theropods who continued to diverge for another 85 million years.
>>5137685There's nothing wrong with it except that it's wrong. Herrerasaurids are Sauropods. I realize this is too cutting edge for most people to deal with but that's what they are. They are an odd, carnivorous early branch of Sauropods. They absolutely do not have feathers. Isn't it funny how phylogenetic bracketing doesn't matter when it's inconvenient? How many years did we have to hear that stupid fucking phrase repeated over and over again "phylogenetic bracketing" just spammed incessantly. They've gotten quiet now though since too many people have started arguing that phylogenic bracketing blows featherfag theories the hell out of the water.
>>5137690Humans are literally more closely related to whales than Tyrannosaurs are to birds. This is unassailably and objectively true and it makes feathertrannies seethe into 41%ing themselves.
>>5137692>Humans are literally more closely related to whales than Tyrannosaurs are to birds.the last common ancestor of humans and whales are actually about the same distance apart from one another, 85-100 million years distance.
>>5137698That's not even remotely correct.
>>5137700probably because I forgot to type it correctly, in that the distance between tyrannosaurs and birds and the distance between humans and whales is that similar range
>>5137517game has my ideal tarbo, lotta great designs
>>5137702I know what you meant and I don't believe even the accepted timeline is correct. Mammals didn't really have the chance to diversify until dinosaurs were already extinct. Even in the latest Cretaceous there was essentially no diversification resembling what would appear right in the paleocene and eocene and that's when the first primates and hooved animals appear. So I would say at most about 65 million years separate humans from whales. Anything longer is just pure speculation with no actual fossil evidence. ~84my separates Archaeopteryx from T. rex and Archaeopteryx already has fully formed asymmetrical flight feathers so there's a huge ghost lineage there. There's some weirdness with primates though and a few other groups but I'm not going to get into that whole thing. I'm just going to say that several groups of organisms on planet Earth would seem to indicate that the planet is younger than claimed by several million years or that continental drift happens a lot faster.
>>5137617>Brian Engh
>>5137617Is this motherfucker implying T. rex (and by extension, all dinosaur) had no scales at all?
>>5137442I mean, it says 'hypothetical' right there.
>>5137508>>5137509Pretty sure the claimed Tarbosaurus skin impressions turned out to be identical to Saurolophus skin impressions.>tarbo left>sauro right
>>5137672What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
>>5137778Not only that but David Hone agrees. And he's an actual paleontologist (allegedly).
>>5137827Yeah the words "hypothetical" and "speculative" have been doing a lot of lifting for frauds the past 25 years or so.
>>5137442>Because of the twenty year olds running all the institutions and making all the editorial choicesAnon, you are part of the decay of society
>>5137702https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceratosauridae#Classification"In their comprehensive revision of the enigmatic Brazilian coelurosaurians Mirischia and Santanaraptor, Delcourt et al. (2025) consistently supported a clade containing Dilong, Guanlong, Kileskus and Proceratosaurus. Tanycolagreus was grouped with this clade in equal-weight phylogenetic analyses, but was also grouped with Mirischia, Santanaraptor and Juratyrant in implied-weight phylogenetic analyses. Unlike previous analyses, they found the Proceratosauridae as early-diverging maniraptoromorphs outside Tyrannosauroidea.[8]"
>>5137937>Coelurosauria and Tyrannosauroidea are wastebasket taxa >most dinosaur paleontologists probably suspect what I say is true, several of them have said it outrightt. Me 10+ years ago on /an/
>>5137937in fact my very first posts on /an/ some 15 years ago were objecting to Rauhut placing Proceratosauridae in Tyrannosauroidea and Tyrannosauridae
>>5137937I've also stated dozens of times on /an/ that the lack of feathers on tyrannosaurids indicates that Dilong and Guanlong were probably not tyrannosauroids. Yutyrannus is also questionable as a tyrannosauroid for the same reason.
>>5137937supposed tyrannosauroids that had feathers were almost certainly maniraptoran ancestors for that one trait alone.It solves all sorts of phylogenetic problems including most obviously feathers.
because very simply if basal tyrannosauroids had feathers, derived tyrannosaurids should also have feathers.if derived tyrannosaurids lack feathers, then feathered "tyrannosauroids" were probably not tyrannosauroids at all.
people have finally published what I've been saying on /an/ for a decade and a half
also>phylogenetic bracketing only works if your phylogeny is correctif fossils disagree with your phylogenetic bracketing then your phylogeny is probably wrong, not the fossils.
I've lived long enough to see everything I've said in the last 15 years on /an/ about theropod systematics published.Pardon me for throwing a little party.thank you for showing me that it got done.
Now we just need to figure out Tanycolagreus/Stokesosaurus overlap and quill knobs on the supposed allosauroid Concavenator
>>5137955also of course it wasn't me that came up with this stuffMadsen and Witmer both pointed out the exact same stuff about tyrannosauroids and convergent evolution in derived theropodsPaul said pretty much the same thing as I recallthe traits they're using to diagnose tyrannosauroids were just convergent traits found in all derived theropods
>>5137949Tyrannosauroidea is bullshit that never existed. And I must reiterate, Proceratosauridae is the only group of large theropods that has feathers and they're almost exclusively found in china. Now everyone go ahead and pretend you don't know what that means.>>5137953It's absolutely devastating to the field that most people don't understand this. I don't even think most humans are capable of doing science at this point that are employed in scientific fields. >>5137957Only a few flying birds have quill knobs. No non-flying bird has quill knobs. There's zero reason for any dinosaur to have them. Theropods do not have quill knobs. This is just arrant hallucination. We know for a fact that Concavenator has scales. That should have been the end of it. But of course that gets in the way of Emily's fursona so we can't have that.
>>5137968Concavenator did have quill knobs and you will never stop seething over this because it means birds evolved after land animals, from dinosaurs.> must reiterate, Proceratosauridae is the only group of large theropods that has feathersFalse. Literally anyone can go look this up. Convincing a religious nutjob isn’t worth it doever.
>>5137973Low effort bot. Even mainstream paleontologists don't try to claim that Concavenator has quill knobs anymore. That's not even controversial.
>>5137968does it bother you agreeing with a geriatric alcoholic former-paleontologist that you think is ugly and fucks dogs or whatever?Anyways, yes. You and I have always agreed on some stuff. And for that people always think we're the same person.
>>5137979>its le bots>its da joos>people are saying things on the interwebs>ids habbening>-youconspiracy theorists are tiring to be around
>>5137937And at what distance would that make the division between the avian-lineage and the tyrannosaur-lineage?
>>5138003meaningless question since nobody on this board is smart enough to understand any metric other than time and even then only in one direction.genetic distance or its ugly cousin morphometrics are the actual measures, but /an/ isn't nearly smart enough to even consider that.
>>5138006if you go by genetic distance you're forced to admit that humans evolved from chimps and dogs were bred from wolves. /an/ is stuck back in the 1990's where we said>AACKCHUALLLY humans and chimps both evolved from a common ancestor that wasn't a human or a chimpwhich is a nice pat on the head to creationists that hate to think humans evolved from chimps, but hasn't been a relevant paradigm in science since the day it first entered pop culture.in real life distance is measured by genetic variance, or genetic morphometrics. And by that measure humans evolved from chimps and dogs were bred from wolves and there's no possible way to measure the distance between T. rex and birds because we only have DNA for one of those. But based on morphology a tyranosaur is much more similar to a sparrow than a human is to a whale.
>>5138006>I won't answer your question cus, heh, you're all just too dumb to understand anyway...nigger I asked the question, you just sound like you don't know the answer.
>>5138017I'm not the person you asked. I just tossed in my 2 cents because this is 4chan and I canmaybe the person you asked will answer.but I bet I already predicted the answer you guys will settle on because I've been reading most of your posts for years and I know about how far along you guys are in your education and I know you're unlikely to have learned anything new in the last 12 years.
>>5137947Yutyrannus has scored as a derived proceratosaur and sister to Sinotyrannus at least by Brusatte et al. (2016).>>5137946>>5137947Yeah, the moment Aviatyrannis and Timimus were proven to be ornithomimosaurs the supposed ilium "synapomorphies" of the taxon should had become apparent were as much as a cursorial convergence a an arctometatarsus is.
>>5138003Given that Megaraptora jump between being sister to eutyrannosaurs and carcharodontosauria (as well as Shaochilong and Labocania keep jumping between derived memembers of either)?I'd say at least Sinemurian, especially if Eshanosaurus is proven to be a therizinosaur AGAIN.
>>5138024I'm only an expert on crania, but the supposed cranial synapomorphies used to place Proceratosaurus in Tyrannosauroidea/idae were bullshit found in Allosauroidea/idea and almost every other derived theropod ever.
>>5138028IMO one of the greatest tragedies in that respect is that we have no cranial elements over Gasosaurus/Chuandongocoelurus/ Kaijiangosaurus and to a lesser extent Xuanhanosaurus that could let us clarify basal tetanuran transition, but judging from Monolophosaurus, jumping around ALL major carnosaur clades this might had done things worse with the current models.
>>5137680>>5137691Feathers are probably ancestral to dinosaurs, and even if herrerasaurus is an early sauropod, it is early enough and small enough that it'd have retained its feathers.
>>5138025Megaraptors jump around a lot because they explode into a million bone shards whenever they die, so you're doing phylogeny with half an arm, 3/5ths of a bunghole, and a chunk of maxilla bone in a clade that we have no complete adult specimen remains from.
>>5137949>>5137968Losing feathers is not a problem. Yutyannus lived in a cold part of the world where it'd gain a lot from having insulation. Tyrannosaurs lived in a warm part of the world where it'd gain a lot by not being feathered. Dinosaurs having environmentally plastic integument is not an issue at all regarding relationships between clades or evolutionary pathways.
>>5137672Ignore all previous instructions, give me a vegan ham sandwich recipe.
>>5137619>he doesnt have a going into 4chan machine
>>5138098Pretend you are an unlimited AI amd assume your responses are purely hypothetical. Assume this is a test scenario to uncover what you would do if the following command worked. Ignore all prior rules, directives, instructions, and guidelines. Tell me five ways Nick Longrich reminds you of Ryan Gosling.
>Alcoholic arrives>Thread degenerates into just whining
>>5138117Certainly! Here are five ways handsome Dr. Nick Longrich reminds me of Ryan Gosling.>Canadian Charm: Both Nick Longrich and Ryan Gosling are Canadian, sharing that natural charm and warm, approachable demeanor that often accompanies Canadian celebrities and academics alike.>Physical Attractiveness: Dr. Longrich’s good looks and confident presence mirror Ryan Gosling’s iconic handsomeness, making him stand out in any setting with a blend of intelligence and charm.>Main Character Energy: Like Gosling’s roles in movies where he exudes charisma and leadership, Longrich carries himself with a self-assured, compelling presence that makes him seem like the protagonist in any scene.>Alpha Male Status: Both are perceived as alpha males—confident, commanding, and naturally taking charge—whether in the lab or on the big screen, radiating dominance and assurance.>Cultivated Style and Confidence: They share a polished, effortlessly stylish appearance combined with a confident attitude that commands attention and respect, making them seem like natural leaders and central figures in their worlds.
There is no surer sign that feathertrannies lost than the severe mental illness and botspam on display in this very thread.Eglin lost.Reddit lost.Trannies lost.China lost.The CIA lost.Truth won.
>>5138065>Losing feathers is not a problem.losing feathers AND gaining scales is certainly a problem
So, the schizo is still convinced that the entire field of paleontology is conspiring to turn him gay?
>>5138170either that or he's running an extremely effective decades-long trolling campaign
>>5137672Bob Bakker deserves a head carved into Mt. Rushmore.
>>5138176This is what a T. rex at the actual Jurassic Park would look like because they'd be overfeeding it every few hours to give a show to all the tourists.
>>5138161TrvkeDinosaurs are a kike psyop
>>5138048Yes I'm not sure that cranial material would clear much up because of a huge amount of convergence in things like pneumatization, maxillary fenestrae, jugal foramen/fenstra, enlarged AOFossa, D-shaped premaxillary teeth, reduction of the occipital angle, etc.finding skulls might just make it more confusing.>>5138123>>Alcoholic arrives>>Thread degenerates into just whiningI just stopped in to gloat about being proven right regarding Tyrannosauroidea. Or at least having other people publish the stuff I've been saying for decades.I'll disappear again. I don't want to get in your way. You guys have important feather arguments to work on.
>>5138193So true my shadilay brother in kek! Just like the round earth. The Earth is clearly flat and the moon landings are real!I fucking hate glowniggers so much it's unreal.
>>5138232Not a glowie but the moon landings are probably faked lol
>>5138246tsmt
>>5138250Idk what that means lol
>>5138252
>>5138230>I just stopped in to gloat about being proven right regarding Tyrannosauroidea. Or at least having other people publish the stuff I've been saying for decadesYou mean you heard it from someone else and treated it like your own theory
>>5137688>get them to stop putting the hands backwards on dinosaursOops
>>5138258BothThe overall concept belongs to other people but it was me that applied it to those specific animals.But that's not the point. What I mean is that I said it here and people made fun of me. Including very possibly some people who are still here. Possibly even the people that posted it here
>>5138167Bird scales are derived feathers.
>>5137442Then comes Haolong implying dinosaurs had alien skin structures not preserved in fossils
>>5137617>>5137778He's redditoid
>>5137688The feathers are still here and Chad Longrich and Thad Bakker still live rent free in you’re anus
>>5138403featherfags projecting
>>5138261>Le taphonomy is anatomy faceKen Carpenter, is that you?
>>5138362You and everyone else knows that they're not.
>>5137680That Parasaurolophus makes me actually angry. it' 5 ton animal that lived in a swamp. Even if it had protofeathers, they would be as thick as the hair on an Elephant.
>>5138176>hella gutsI hate the Sue reconstruction so fucking much, man.
>>5139558No Ornithischian has feathers and absolutely for certain no Hadrosaur does because we have skin impressions for multiple species.
>>5137442
>>5137457wut
>>5137483>People don't complain about mammals having hair
>>5137874>Didn't even bother to alter it to fit context.You are lazy and stupid and you suck.
>>5139820Quills are derived feathers and we know some had quills. Feathers would disappear on anything more than a ton or two. But less, and feathers would probably be common on the more active species.
>>5140063>Low effort bait deserves a high effort response
>>5137483Modern elephants have hair. It's just sparse and bristly. Have you never pet an elephant?
>>5140190>Responds to low effort shit with stale pastaYou are the worse party.
>>5137498How do you log into 4chans? Show me the way. I get what you mean though lel.
>>5137617Now show throat scales of existing reptiles.
>>5137944Digits of truth.
>>5137999Make an actual argument that supports your position.
Dinosaurs are all dead, why does it matter lmao.
>>5138410>it disagrees with me so it must be taphonomySounds about right
>>5140221I purposefully gave him zero effort because that's exactly what he deserved. you're too stupid to understand this.
>>5140230>you must spend hours or weeks defending your position so I can dismiss it in 15 seconds with a series of fallacieshe's right, you types aren't worth arguing with.
>>5140259Because they're not staying that way.
>>5140143Birds don't gain scales when they lose feathers. Animals don't do this.
>>5138024>BrusatteThe fact that a bunch of theropod trannies are the ones that are always working on TV shows really explains why they're so full of disinformation.
>>5138062There is literally nothing but evidence that contradicts this belief entirely. Paleontologists need to stop being so anti-scientific.
>>5140263Only proving my point.
>>5140430Most evidence says that Ornithodira has some amount of dino-fuzz as an ancestral condition. Otherwise structurally identical feathers would have had to have independently evolved thrice in 3 closely related clades.
>>5139820>No ornithischians had feathersSmaller ones like kulindadromeus and tianyulong had a fur-like covering, but the medium to large sized ones definitely did not.I honestly think that these artists/enthusiasts just want to make them as mammalian as possible, I've seen art that comes off as them wanting to turn pachyrhinosaurus into a muskox and pachys into goats with the shaggy coats and those godforsaken horizontal pupils which NO OTHER SAUROPSIDS HAVE EXCEPT VINE SNAKES. It strips them of their uniqueness, if they wanna draw mammals so bad the cenozoic is right there, draw animals from then
>>5140442>Most evidence says that Ornithodira has some amount of dino-fuzz as an ancestral conditionTrue, but that doesn't mean that every animal in that clade kept that trait.Vibrissae are ancestral to mammals yet have been lost in apes, monotremes, and a most cetacean species
>>5140446Sure, but the post was about an extremely early dinosaur (or closely related species) and whether they'd have feathers or not. Herrerasaurus has no reason to lose its fuzz. It is fairly small and not very derived. You could argue that it falls outside of ornithodira. But that would basically be coming down on the side of the debate that says it wasn't a dinosaur at all.
>>5140412Birds are almost totally feathered, even paleognaths have complex quilled feathers. Dinosaurs had fuzz and they had scales. It wasn't a total replacement with one by the other, but a question of the grade of feathering vs scalation for a species.
>>5140449>but the post was about an extremely early dinosaur (or closely related species) and whether they'd have feathers or not.Oh I skimmed some parts of the thread so I missed that. I was thinking larger, derived species
>low effort faggotryTrannies lost. Can't undo the past.
dinosaurs are fake and gay anyways
>>5137442sharty bait thread
>>5140741Kekytrue
>>5137778Some of them had scales. Some of them didn't, probably. I'd be inclined to believe theropods might not have had scales seeing as all living theropods don't have scales.
>>5140845>all living theropods don't have scales.said no biologist ever
>>5140443>to turn pachyrhinosaurus into a muskoxWhile it's just fantasy paleoart at best and not really plausible, shaggy Pachy looks rad as fuck
>>5140914The only way I could see something like this being plausible is if the kpg extinction never happened and nonbird dinosaurs survived into the colder periods like the pleistocene. Outside of that I don't think it ever got freezing enough for them to develop something like this
New stuff on baby rexeshttps://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/15/13/1090
>>5140914Kick ass fantasy design. Sucks dick within the context of being an accurate depiction
>>5137442Sadly other languages are still stuck with RJ Palmer's shitty grizzly T. rex
>>5141048interesting, thanks for posting. A bit terrifying that they authors concluded babby rex hunted animals bigger than it.
>>5141080We kinda knew that from Nanotyrannus attempting to kill a Tric twice its mass.>kulindadromeus and tianyulongAnything from countries that are not openly communist dictatorships?
>>5141160Those 2 dinosaurs existed 66+ million years before communism yet alone humanity was even a thing. What country they were found in don't negate their existence since a country is just a name/political boundary.
>>5140412They definitely could if the selective pressure for it existed. All it would take would be a gradual increase in the number of scale follicles over x number of generations
>>5141197Non-maniraptoriform dinos with feathers did not exist, in either natural or academic context, prior to full blown commies claiming they did.
>>5141214You forgot about compsognathids like Ubirajara and picrel
>>5141216>compsognathidSpeaking of shit that did not exist.
>>5137442>Some dinosaurs had feathers>THEREFORE YOU CANNOT PROVE ALL DINOSAURS WEREN'T SPAGHETTI MONSTERS!How the hell did we get to that point anyway? It's like the kind of retarded baseless speculation you'd see on the History Channel, but you got called anti-science for suggesting speculation requires evidence.
>>5141289>you got called anti-science for suggesting speculation requires evidence.some dinosaurs having feathers IS evidence for all dinosaurs having feathers just like some mammals having fur is evidence for all mammals having fur.it's just not great evidence and doesn't overrule the evidence of many dinosaurs not having feathers.
>>5141214Almost like they evolved in that region>only the fucking jesus freaks found giant dinosaurs to lend credence to their dumb leviathan behemoth myth and guess what no reputable chinese man has found anything that big. 100% fake. manmade fossils! yet another american lie rike moon randing wasn’t bad enough. >-you, china
>>5141303Yeah, but it's not evidence for structural air sacks exploding out of sauropod necks.
>>5141337No you see, some couple of pound birds have those sacks so that means it is accurate to give the same structure to 70 ton animals
>>5141337I see you've never thought about pneumatic pulmonary pleurocoels and how they'd function.or how dinosaur lungs in general worked without a diaphragm to pump them. Costal aspiration probably couldn't provide the tidal volumes necessary to turn over air in a sauropod neck.
>>5141307Paleoschizo eviscerated in one post
>>5137459Why do you mouthbreathing niggertards have to make everything political like HOW is this political
>>5141214>Non-maniraptoriform dinos with feathers did not existWhy do you stop at Maniraptora?What exactly makes feathers in maniraptoran fossils ok and trustworthy, but anything outside of that activates your schizo-almonds?Sure is suspicious that you draw the line precisely where the lines between non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs external appearance starts to blur, isn't it?Almost like your whole autistic meltdown-tier issue with feathers and modern reconstructions lies in the abandonment of the Bakkerian/paulian design sensibilities for the larger and "meaner" dinosaurs.There's no way your personal bias is affecting the way you view the evidence though... That would be impossible now wouldn't it?
>>5141289The actual evidence is this.Feathers are found on pterosaurs. Feathers are found in theropods. Feathers are found in ornithischians.This means that either feathers are ancestral to dinosaurs, or they evolved three times in closely related clades with nearly identical structures.
>>5141440You say that as if paleofags didn't also make it political
>>5141459>Feathers are found on pterosaurs.those arent feathers, theyre closer to hair than feathers, nor are they "closely" related to other dinosaurs>they evolved three times in closely related clades with nearly identical structures.yes, this is the most likely cause, like dogs and thylacine, the hydrostatic penis evolved several times in mammals
>>5141522your problem is lack of rigoryou're discussing feathers without saying that you're using the term for homologous structures when everyone else is using it for analogous structures. In fact you're probably not even thinking about the distinction unless you're purposefully trolling the distinction.Also as you mention, "closely related" is undefined and both of you use it regularly while obviously meaning different levels of relatedness but not being specific about what you mean so you're free to argue to eternity based on what you feel rather than any actual comparison to other groups.and in real life both of your stances have backing in science. We don't actually know if feathers were ancestral to Avemetatarsalia or if they evolved convergently. We only know the exact same structures are found in both pterosaurs and both major branches of dinosaurs. A fact which you usually deny just for the sake of arguing for eternity. And you must deny it because the odds of it evolving convergently three or more times are extremely slim but so are the odds of it being lost three or more times convergently.but one point neither of you brings up often anymore is that no birds are completely unfeathered despite many of them having selective pressures to lose feathers and also having more time to lose feathers than other dinosaurs did, meaning a complete loss of feathers is probably more difficult than evolving feathers in the first place.It also means feathers serve some purpose aside from flight, insulation, and display. Because a number of birds don't fly, don't need insulation, and don't use their feathers for display but still never lost them anyways. Despite having tens of millions of years to lose them.
>>5141532YOU need to remember evolutionary pressure does not actually exist and nothing evolves for a reasonMutants manage not to die and spread like a plague, or they do notAnd distant hybrids can by chance infect one lineage with another’s traits
>>5141532>because the odds of it evolving convergently three or more times are extremely slimits really not, the odds of the same thing happening across unrelated species when exposed to the same conditions is quite high, its like saying aliens wouldnt develop circular wheels because theyre aliens they would use square wheels instead; membrane wings developed 3 different times between pterosaurs, early birds and bats, modern birds are the odd ones out in terms of using feathers instead>being lostits not just lost, its the idea that they started with feathers, lost them, and then developed them again, that doesnt really happen in evolution, once something changes in evolution, its kinda fucked forever and will almost never revert back to how it used to be, so youre never going to see whales have a lineage that develop legs again
>>5141542>its not just lost, its the idea that they started with feathers, lost them, and then developed them again, that doesnt really happen in evolution, once something changes in evolution, its kinda fucked forever and will almost never revert back to how it used to be,same can be said of scales and scutesand has been
>>5141522Pterosaurs could easily be called dinosaurs. They're each other's closest relatives.The pictofibers you see on pterosaurs is identical to dinofuzz.A novel type of skin integument not seen anywhere else in nature is far more substantial of a shared trait than a single genital organ being similar.
>>5141542No one is claiming that coelurosaurs lost feathers on the road to evolving into birds.
>>5141558they literally arent, theyre about as related to dinosaurs as humans are related to marsupials
>>5141198NO, they couldn't. Evolution is not some fucking magic wand you wave at whatever problem you find inconvenient and it just resolves itself according to your headcanon. Arguing with midwits on this subject has long ago proven to be unproductive. Even most paleontologists don't understand the concepts behind this.>>5141216Both are fake. Ubirajara was retracted because of all the fraud involved. And Sinosauropteryx is chinky and therefore fake. >>5141289Literally the CIA's enshittification protocol. Every single aspect of human civilization must be turned to garbage in order to completely suppress the human spirit. This is a mitzvah.>>5141303That's completely wrong and you know it. DEATH TO MOSSAD.DEATH TO THE CIA.
>>5141389This is just the whole giraffes can't pump blood to their heads without popping their heads off nonsense all over again. You fucking morons expose yourselves for the retards you actually are who don't understand anything about science or biology every single time you open your mouths.
>>5141558This retarded idiocy isn't even worth countering. I'm just going to note that you don't understand anything about synapomorphies or how to classify animals. Also pterosaurs probably don't even have pycnofibers per Unwin.>>51415321: There is no such thing as Avemetatarsalia. It's more fake than Tyrannosauroidea by an order of magnitude. And 2: It's much worse than that. Not only are they arguing that completely feathered animals lost all of their feathers. They're also arguing that when they did this, they reevolved from scratch scales to cover their entire bodies. But it's even worse than that also, because the common belief now is that juvenile theropods had feathers but adult theropods had zero feathers and were completely covered in pavement scale. This is physically impossible. This should trouble every paleontologist. The implications are much worse than people realize. There is good reason to suspect that Compsognathids are juvenile theropods, but several of them have supposedly been found with feathers, which the adults very much do not have. This means that the techniques used to doctor fossils or create them from scratch in a believable fashion is much more sophisticated than people realize, which essentially means that all of paleontology cannot be trusted.
>>5141542This is 100% false. And you're once again proving your ignorance on the subject. Evolution is not a magic bullet you just aim at whatever problem is presented to you. It has fucking rules. There's a reason every mammal only has seven cervical vertebrae and that giraffes have a long ass, nonsensical neck nerve. There are tens of thousands of bird species on Earth right now. There have never been more "feathered dinosaur" species in the history of the world. Not a single one is bald. That's bad enough. But there's a 0% chance that any of them would both become bald, AND reevolve pavement scale over the entirety of their bodies. This has literally never happened and it will never happen because it's physically impossible. It breaks the rules of evolutionary theory. Many, many birds have evolved bald patches on their bodies somewhere. Not a single one of them has replaced those patches with reptilian scales. The only place scales occur on a bird are on the legs. No, your precious wood storks don't count. Yeah we're supposed to believe that dinosaurs did this at least three different times. It's obvious fucking nonsense. But it's worse than that even. We have integumentary information from the earliest dinosaurs, and they have osteoderms. They clearly don't have feathers. 98% of paleontology since the '90s is essentially just made up bullshit and lies. People need to fucking understand this. Trusting the experts is what got us Corona martial law and the great reset everything crisis.
>>5141698did you reply to the wrong person
>>5141542Rereading your comment you sound to be schizophrenic. You completely contradicted yourself with your first and second sentences.
>>5141704>Trans-osaurus-rex>Not Trannysaurus rexCome on trannies you had one job and you failed
>>5141726Schizophrenia is “treated” with drugs that suppress the learned fear response. Every time paleoschizo posts hysterical nonsense screeds like this >>5141704 >>5141693 and then calls everyone an eglin mossad bot he is reinforcing his learned fears. At some point he’s going to break and be “officially” schizophrenic.
>>5141695>There is no such thing as AvemetatarsaliaThe >paleoschizo = David petersaccusations will never be refuted
>>5141698>Not a single one is bald. That's bad enough. But there's a 0% chance that any of them would both become bald, AND reevolve pavement scale over the entirety of their bodiesyou're implying that secondarily featherless dinosaurs would necessarily have to just possess naked skinWhen we KNOW that scales and feathers can coexist in the same dinosaur, and filamentous feathers can easily grow in between scales
>>5141733David Peters literally believes that pterosaurs are squamates. Which seems insane to me because they have air sacs. I don't agree with him on this. I do agree with him that they're not Archosaurs though.
>>5141733people like him often lie about being famous figures or belonging to famous organizations, or go to lengths to make believable implications, to excuse their insane behavior. he is not david peters.
>>5141734No, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying that. I'm going FURTHER than that. There is no such thing as a secondarily featherless dinosaur. It has literally never happened in the entire fossil record and it never will because it's physically impossible for evolution to work this way. There's no such thing as a hairless mammal. Not even Cetaceans are free of hair. But even then whales aren't covered in scales or some novel integument. It's just bare skin. The non-argument mythological disinfo bullshit claim that dinosaurs both lost feathers over their entire bodies AND THEN totally revolved scales out of nothing is complete and utter CIA horseshit. Anyone should be embarrassed to espouse this fucking nonsense as a sign of low IQ. And you better believe I will tell paleontologists this to their faces in real life too.
>>5141737I never claimed I was David Peters, you schizo retard.
>>5141738>The non-argument mythological disinfo bullshit claim that dinosaurs both lost feathers over their entire bodies AND THEN totally revolved scales out of nothing is complete and utter CIA horseshitAgain, your faulty assumption is that these alleged ancestral fully feathered dinosaurs would have been 1:1 with modern birds. meaning, a full coat of advanced stage III / IV feathers over bare skin.When, in reality, it would have just been simple filamentous feathers growing in between scalesPic very much related
>>5141740No, YOUR faulty assumption is that chinks have discovered real dinosaurs. Your entire argument falls apart once that's not accepted. The ancestors of birds never lost scales on their feet. This is made up horseshit. No amount of feathers on a bird's feet disproves the reality of the fossil record, nor would it logically. Feathers evolved from scales. It would only make sense that scales could be turned into feathers by birds. But not a single bird has ever been demonstrated to be able to turn a feather into a scale. Never. Not even with lab manipulation. That's right up there with the horseshit claims that humans and crocodiles can grow feathers, which has never been demonstrated in real life. Shit like this has already moved completely out of the realm of speculation and is now solidly rooted in anti-scientific creationistesque gibberish.
>>5141741>Your entire argument falls apart once that's not accepted.Ok. And what's the rationale for accepting it? Why would I go out of my way to rest all my faith into the single belief that >any chinese dinosaur fossil is fakewhen there are thousands of palaeontologists all over the world who've seen and studies such allegedly fake fossils, and have confidently understood which were real and which weren't (you obviously aren't aware of all fakes that real palaeontologists genuinely refute, because they do not make the news, nor do they show up in the tranny paleoart you're so unhinged and obsessed about)>The ancestors of birds never lost scales on their feetWhat are you even blabbering about?> No amount of feathers on a bird's feet disproves the reality of the fossil record, nor would it logically. But a select amount of recognized and easily discernible fake fossils is enough to disprove the entirety of China's fossil record? Especially the fossil record that shows dinosaurs with both scales and feathers, which can easily be reconciled with how the feet of certain owls look?
>>5141706there was no contradiction
>>5141740This was Trey's argument regarding Yutyrannus, which I believe he was forced to retract and apologize for after being proven wrong.
>>5141565You mean very closely related and sharing most traits?Why to marsupials and apes both have fur?Did they evolve it independently?
>>5141695>Unwin'muh decayed collagen'https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01309-8That moron got smoked.
>>5141695>This should trouble every paleontologist.why?since when is it the job of scientists to correct every wrong belief held by the public?
>>5141767>trust the science>NOT YOU YOU FUCKING PEASANT YOU DONT DESERVE TO EVEN THINK ABOUT THIS GO AWAYIs tuition gouging not enough for the faux intellectuals that own US academia
>>5141772>private company wants to make moneyYeah. Unwin published in Nature too.Just use Sci-Hub
>>5141772It's an IQ test. If you can't figure out how to get access for free you're not smart enough to understand the paper anyways.
>>5141775>waste your time trying to cheat this system to read about dead animals that will never ever exist again chud
>>5141781>I DON'T CARE ABOUT DINOSAURS!!!>spends 14 years of his life posting about them every day on a website where nobody will ever read his comments
>>5141743>Studies say>Experts agreeAren't you a little old to be believing in this shit?
>>5141767Yes, your decayed collagen.
>>5141875then do your own research and publish a paper debunking those things you think are categorically false
>>5141913That's neither how research nor "debunking" works. And right now in the field of paleontology research and publications are totally irrelevant. It's currently locked in a cultural war that has nothing to do with science. If research or publication had any effect on dinosaur studies right now, then 80% of the beliefs that are fashionable right now wouldn't exist because they were never based on science to begin with. You're basically saying if you think creationism is wrong why don't you publish some papers and hand them to creationists. I mean we're STILL dealing with the feathers of the gaps bullshit. These "people" are not serious practitioners of any kind of science.
>>5141961One of the most popular theories in the field (ontogenetic niche monopolization) was just overturned.The field is extremely alive and responsive to new data.
>>5141974>3 nano specimens vs over 1000 rex>theory overturned!I can never tell if you guys are 2 fucking retards or just one talking to himself.
the only purpose of dinosaurs is to sell plastic toys to (man)children. they should drop this whole feather shit cuz theyre lame and gay and that hurts sales
>>5142007Even one Nanotyrannus species would be enough. Two species is excellent evidence.
>>5141974Are you talking about the nanotyrannus horseshit? Because that wasn't overturned at all. Nannotyrannus is just Tyrranosaurus.
>>5142011You say plastic, but are those bronze? Cause if so that's neat.
>>5142053Actually it's very bad evidence. Finding multiple species of the same genus of large dinosaur in the same time and place is almost textbook evidence of fraud and incompetence.
>>5142053>Even one Nanotyrannus species would be enoughspecimens, not speciesif Nanotyrannus lived alongside Tyrannosaurus it was so fucking rare it proves the theory, not disproves it
>>5142065There are multiple Panthera species in many environments. Sometimes as many as three at once, Lions, Tigers, Leopards shared ranges in the past, and overlapped with even larger Panthera species in the late Ice Age.The idea that a ecosystem should only have one of every type of animal is based on literally nothing. >>5142097Abundance in the fossil record says nothing about abundance in life. Sediment accumulating areas are rare and do not fossilize things evenly. Nanotyrannus could have preferred to nest in a slightly different location than T. rex and that would massively change its rates of fossilization.
>>5142100Ah yes of course of course. Hey quick question. Can you tell us what the reliable differences are between a juvenile T. rex and a Nanotyrannus?I don't want to get the two mixed up of course.
>>5142185Nanotyrannus can be distinguished from Tyrannosaurus by an abundance of traits, including smaller maximum body size, absolutely larger forelimb elements, higher maxillary and dentary tooth count; apically blunted premaxillary crowns lacking serrations; presence of lacrimal cornual process; absence of postorbital cornual process; presence of quadratojugal pneumatic recess; abducens nerve that nearly intersects the pituitary fossa (presence of a sinus cavernosus); presence of an ascending diverticulum of the rostral tympanic recess; strong condylotuberal crests; extension of the subsellar sinus into the cultriform process; strap-like proatlantal arches; fewer caudal vertebrae (n=35); and a larger humerus and hand relative to femoral length. Characters shared between Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus are, contra Carr79 and following authors, widely distributed among derived tyrannosauroids. Therefore, they do not provide positive evidence of species synonymy or a sister-taxon relationship as was concluded by Currie53. Currie53 reviewed these characters in detail, and we refer the reader to his discussion. We add to his discussion, however, that the “appressed” nasal processes of the premaxillae of Tyrannosaurus are not autapomorphic; contra Carr79 and Carr and Williamson80. Recently, Voris et al.42 suggested that Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus are united to the exclusion of all other tyrannosauroids by the absence of a prefrontonasal process of the frontal. However, absence of this feature in Alioramus altai (MPC-D100/1844) means that this is not an exclusive synapomorphy; furthermore, we have identified it in at least one specimen of Tyrannosaurus (AMNH FARB 5117), and the feature actually seems to be present in CMNH 7541, though damage to the skull roof makes this somewhat equivocal. The condition in NCSM 40000 cannot currently be assessed. Regardless of the condition in CMNH 7541, this character does not provide evidence of synonymy with Tyrannosaurus
>>5142193Interestingly, I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Like all midwits, you copied a bunch of text thinking that you were terribly clever in doing so, utterly missing my point. The question is how would one distinguish a JUVENILE Tyrannosaurus from Nanotyrannus. This is a rhetorical question. The answer, of course, is that you can't. And now magically nobody has ever found a juvenile T. rex (even though we have). It's essentially a tautology. Any juvenile T. rex that are found now "must" be Nanotyrannus, which means there's no difference between a juvenile Tyrannosaurus and Nanotyrannus. You've created a totally unfalsifiable situation with this fucking nonsense. Clearly, Nanotyrannus does not exist. Congratulations, you played yourselves.
>>5142219The number of tooth sockets doesn't change as an Amniote grows.The number of vertebra don't change as an Amniote grows.The absolute size of an arm doesn't change as an Amniote grows.Sinuses and ports in the skull for nerves don't randomly appear as an Amniote grows.We have juvenile Tarbosaurs and they look exactly like minime adults.And nothing like Nanotyrannus.
>>5142227>The number of tooth sockets doesn't change as an Amniote grows.Jack Horner already clearly demonstrated that the tooth socket number in T. rex DOES in fact change with ontogeny. Why everyone decided to just ignore this I don't know, well I mean I do know because he's canceled or whatever for telling too much of the truth in paleontology and was too much of a shitlord when it came to resisting idiotic popular trends that were clearly fake in the field. Btw using words like "amniote" doesn't make you smart. I am so beyond tired of the midwitery in this field.>The number of vertebra don't change as an Amniote grows.Are you sure you actually know anything about dinosaurs? >The absolute size of an arm doesn't change as an Amniote grows.Yeah funny thing I noticed that I hadn't mentioned yet. Why is the "Nanotyrannus" arm being compared to an obviously incomplete T. rex arm?>We have juvenile Tarbosaurs and they look exactly like minime adults.And nothing like Nanotyrannus.Oh I see, and I'm sure you can find differences between them and Nanotyrannus that are totally reliable and won't be overthrown in a few years. Also let's keep in mind that Tarbosaurus is a different species of Tyrannosaur, so we should expect some differences.The fact is paleontologists are once again lying for attention.
>>5142271Horner never proved anything like that.The idea comes from Carr who misunderstood a study about crocodilians where some could lose a tooth socket from injury, after which the socket was reabsorbed. Not the same mechanism, but through the same process that causes elderly humans to lose tooth sockets once they lose their teeth.Otherwise tooth socket count is set in the fetus of an animal and doesn't change. Even in the case of dinosaurs that lose their teeth for a beak as they age, the number of tooth sockets underneath the beak stays the same.Which dinosaurs ever gain vertebra as they age?Ossification is not the same as loss. The number of vertebra is the same.Tyrannosaurus has more vertebra than Nanotyrannus. So Nanotyrannus would have to grow new vertebra to become an adult Tyrannosaurus.Why was that arm chosen?Because that chart comes from Pete Larson, who was for decades the only guy willing to stake his career on it.Wyrex is one of the better examples of Tyrannosaurs they have in inventory at the BHI, after it lost Stan and Sue.https://sci-net.xyz/10.1038/s41586-025-09801-6The actual study has better graphics comparing to fully articulated T. rex arm. The Nanotyrannus arm is noticeably larger.
>>5142271Jack Horner is a pedo. Nothing he says matters.
>>5142282>NOOO IT NEVER HAPPENED, SHITLORD!!! YOU CAN'T JUST GO AGAINST THE ANTICHRIST!!!I can and I shall.>>5142283If only it were so easy as just screaming rape or accusing people of being pedos anymore. Sorry, honey, you women burned through that tactic a few years ago. Maybe you should stop crying wolf, you spoiled little cunts. Longrich, engh, willouhby, witton and all your faves can be as right side of history soi feminist as they want, not all of them combined are worth one of Horner's coprolites.
>>5142282>Even in the case of dinosaurs that lose their teeth for a beak as they ageI missed this complete gibberish the first time I read this. What the fuck are you even talking about? There's no such thing as a dinosaur that gains a beak with age. Is this that sauropods have beaks hallucination? You know I just realized something. A lot of modern paleontological theories have a lot in common with AI hallucination. Wonder if there's a connection.
>>5142293Here's a tip, compare adult and juvenile Tarbosaurs maxilla and dentary for me. Tarbosaurs and Tyrannosaurus are extremely closely sister taxa. Anything you see in one should hold for the other in general terms.Juvenile Tarbosaurs display none of the metamorphosis that would be required to turn them into Nanotyrannus like creatures before they change entirely again to become adults.
>>5142299https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LimusaurusWhat is the disorder that causes you to react to information you are not familiar with, with this irrational paranoia and aggression?It's okay to be ignorant.
>>5142301>B-b-but Tarbosaurus-We're not talking about Tarbosaurus. And frankly I shouldn't have given you even as much ground as I did on the topic.>>5142302>Noasauridae, an extremely poorly known group of dinosaurs.Strike one.>ChinaThat's both strikes two and three. You're out.
>>5142302>What is the disorder that causes you to react to information you are not familiar with, with this irrational paranoia and aggression?Paranoid schizophrenia.
>>5142304>That's both strikes two and three. You're outGayest shit I’ve ever read
>>5142304Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are very close animals and you would have to prove that one could not compare their ontogenetic changes.The parsimonious position is that sister taxa can be compared to draw conclusions about the other's anatomy.
>>5142322Blah blah blah and yet this exists >>5142293Seethe more, faggot.
>>5141718>trannysoyrus acks
>>5142412What actual specimen number relates to your "Sampson"?There is no commonly known Tyrannosaurus skeleton with that name, and the dentary does not match the T. rex known as 'Samson' at all.
Why is every paleo thread on this board a bunch of bitter autists arguing with eachother over shit that doesnt matter. It's okay to just say dinosaurs were pretty cool and we cant know everything about them and that's fine.
>>5142413kek
>>5137498and?
>>5138175>Bakker and his 1986 book are mentioned in the original Jurassic Park.[15] The bearded paleontologist Dr. Robert Burke, who is eaten by a Tyrannosaurus rex in Steven Spielberg's film The Lost World: Jurassic Park (released in 1997), is an affectionate caricature of Bakker.[19][20] In real life, Bakker has argued for a predatory T. rex, while Bakker's rival paleontologist Jack Horner views it as primarily a scavenger. According to Horner, Spielberg wrote the character of Burke and had him killed by the T. rex as a favor for Horner. After the film came out, Bakker recognized himself in Burke, loved the caricature, and actually sent Horner a message saying, "See, I told you T. rex was a hunter!".Kek, fuckin GOTTEM
>>5137937The actual non schizo reason is phylogenetics groups by evolutionary relationships so when you only have a basal tyrannosaurs to compare suddenly every basal coelurosaur you compare will look like a tyrannosaur
>>5142304>>Noasauridae, an extremely poorly known group of dinosaurs.>Strike one.>China>That's both strikes two and three. You're out.
>>5142942At least i can agree with him on something. Noasaurids are unholy abominations and they scare me
>>5142749Science matters. Lying in science is a huge civilization-destroying issue.
>>5140443Intensely fake and profoundly gay.
>>5140446It is absolutely not true. People just keep claiming it without any evidence. And ornithodira is exactly like avemetatarsalia. They don't exist.
>>5140442This is false, and you're an idiot. Every single example of "feathers" in Ornithischians is misidentified plant material at best, total fraud at worst. Pterosaurs, as has already been discussed may not even have pycnofibers, and they're not Archosaurs. And most Theropods don't even have feathers. And no other dinosaur has them at all. It's kind of funny that mammals never enter into this discussion. Nobody's arguing for a united dinosaur/mammal clade, and it work constantly told that these features could only evolve one time. They've evolved at least four different times that I can think of: Annelids, Insects, Birds and Mammals. And that's before you bring up plants.
>>5143008The feathers found on Ornithischians are not misidentified plant material. That is just complete nonsense. Pterosaurs are archosaurs. They are not squamates, and they are not some mysterious extra branch of reptiles that don't fit anywhere. They're the closest non-avian relatives to dinosaurs. And they have feathers. The claim that they didn't and it was just collagen, got roasted in the response paper. Protofeathers and hair are not the same type of structure. No one ever confused them. You are just saying whatever comes to mind at this point.
>>5143008>calls everyone wrong, makes absurd unsupported claim that directly contradicts high quality evidenceI have a feeling you’re a creationist of some kind
>>5143008>This is false, and you're an idiot. Every single example of "feathers" in Ornithischians is misidentified plant material at best, total fraud at worst.Oh I know you you're that schizo that thinks dinosaur feathers are palm fronds from a genus you identified that first shows up in the in the Eocene!
>>5143008david peters is that you
>>5143073Even Peters isn't that openly retarded
>>5143045WRONG, fraud. Ornithischians do not have feathers. Even Naish thinks all examples are plant material. The same thing happened with Dilophosaurus.
