Dinosaurs

[Owen Grady]

Personally I think the revelation T-Rex had "lips" was way more jarring. I'm so used to dramatic portrayals in movies where the Rex's teeth stick out across its lower jaw like a crocodile's. The new look is a lot more avian.

See, this is news to me because I always thought that tyrannosaurs had lips, simply to keep their food in their mouths. I swear I read about it in an article I saw when I was a kid, but now people are talking about it like it's some new revelation. What's the deal?

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

See, this is news to me because I always thought that tyrannosaurs had lips, simply to keep their food in their mouths. I swear I read about it in an article I saw when I was a kid, but now people are talking about it like it's some new revelation. What's the deal?

The Rex's teeth in Jurassic Park jut out over the lower jaw like so. The one in Walking With Dinosaurs had a similar look. Come to think of it, I don't think any mainstream depiction of the T-Rex had its teeth completely covered.

 

[Un Platano]

Was it the Placerias?

If so, it's technically not a dinosaur. It's a Dicnyodont: an archaeic reptile which actually predates the arrival of dinosaurs and died out sometime in the Triassic period.

No, I'm certain that it was a dinosaur, something that surprised me based on its appearance. It was an early one too.

I actually find synapsids a lot more interesting than the dinosaurs. It's a bit sad that most people don't care about the paleozoic era at all, and know hardly anything from before the dinosaurs. The paleozoic is way more important in the history of biology than the mesozoic and it's a lot more interesting imo, but content about it is much less accessible and tit isn't represented at all in media, unlike dinosaurs that for whatever reason pervade everyone's conception of ancient animals. Everything between the Cambrian and Permian is so much more diverse than the mesozoic, which only saw 4 significant developments in dinosaurs, birds, mammals somewhat, and flowers. The paleozoic saw so much more.

 

[Owen Grady]

The Rex's teeth in Jurassic Park jut out over the lower jaw like so. The one in Walking With Dinosaurs had a similar look. Come to think of it, I don't think any mainstream depiction of the T-Rex had its teeth completely covered.

What gets me though is the implication that this is somehow new in scientific circles, though. Visible teeth have always been present in tyrannosaurs in mainstream media depictions but I was under the impression that the majority of scientists already believed that tyrannosaurs had lips and that this had been the prevalent view within the scientific community for many years.

 

[beansntoast]

What gets me though is the implication that this is somehow new in scientific circles, though. Visible teeth have always been present in tyrannosaurs in mainstream media depictions but I was under the impression that the majority of scientists already believed that tyrannosaurs had lips and that this had been the prevalent view within the scientific community for many years.

sometimes it takes time until theorys take hold in the general scientific world, most scientists are pretty specialized in one subject and rarely stray from that after all.

fftopic:an example that comes to mind would be the alpha concept in canids, it's still widely believed that canid packs have a very strict hierarchy established by fights and constant aggression. this concept has been coined by Schenkel in 1947, popularized by Mech in 1970, but also pretty much debunked again by Mech in 1999, so almost 20 years ago, yet the general population and even scientists still believe in that outdated theory and treat their pets accordingly (like that nutjob Cesar Milan for example). stiff ike that doesn't really reach people, unless they're ethologists specialized in canid behaviour themselves I guess.

 

[Yutyrannus]

I actually find synapsids a lot more interesting than the dinosaurs. It's a bit sad that most people don't care about the paleozoic era at all, and know hardly anything from before the dinosaurs. The paleozoic is way more important in the history of biology than the mesozoic and it's a lot more interesting imo, but content about it is much less accessible and tit isn't represented at all in media, unlike dinosaurs that for whatever reason pervade everyone's conception of ancient animals. Everything between the Cambrian and Permian is so much more diverse than the mesozoic, which only saw 4 significant developments in dinosaurs, birds, mammals somewhat, and flowers. The paleozoic saw so much more.

OH GOD, I KNOW. I know. I am a fucking slut for Spenacodontia. They're so fucking cool. Throw the entire Permian at me and I'll be happy. I only made this thread exclusive to dinosaurs because I figured that's what people would be most willing to discuss.


You know whats my shit? Gorgonopsids. Inostrancevia was such a badass.

See, this is news to me because I always thought that tyrannosaurs had lips

I know, right?? Even for more "lizardlike" portrayals of Rex I always thought it was weird, because... even lizards have lips.

 

[ICametoLurk]

Ediacaran and Early Cambrian fauna had best diversity.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/36/13122.full

 

[Dysnomia]

That baby bird is amazing.

I like ankylosaurs and nodosaurs. Big armored tanks. But I find their faces cute. It's like a turtle and a armadillo got together and made babies.

I want to pet his head and call him a good boy. I'd probably get freight trained though. But it would be worth it.

I remember reading in Jurassic Park that the baby t-rex's had some feathers and begged to be fed like baby birds. That might have been Michael Crichton's compromise for the feather debate at the time. His descriptions were based on the latest knowledge available. I think when people criticize it too much they forget or are unaware of that fact. Not sure about the dilophosaur neck frill/poison spray thing. Was that in the book or just the movie? There's no evidence that it had a neck frill or spit poison. But unfortunately it's been cemented in many depictions now. I'm not sure if we'd even be able to tell if a dinosaur was even poisonous anyway.

I got into reading about dinosaurs as a kid. This was back before anything was usually depicted with feathers. The whole feather thing annoys me in the sense that people are acting like reality is ruining their childhoods and somehow dinosaurs are wussy with feathers. They forget that the Americas had an age of terrifying giant birds that would have eaten you alive. Feathers don't make a huge carnivorous beast any less scary or cool. I think it's more cool having better and more accurate depictions thanks to more advanced science and more detailed fossil finds.

 

[AnOminous]

Diplodocus was pretty cool. It wasn't particularly ferocious and was herbivorous. It was just too damn big to eat.

Spoiler: Big Ass Image

[/spoiler

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

That baby bird is amazing.
I remember reading in Jurassic Park that the baby t-rex's had some feathers and begged to be fed like baby birds. That might have been Michael Crichton's compromise for the feather debate at the time. His descriptions were based on the latest knowledge available. I think when people criticize it too much they forget or are unaware of that fact. Not sure about the dilophosaur neck frill/poison spray thing. Was that in the book or just the movie? There's no evidence that it had a neck frill or spit poison. But unfortunately it's been cemented in many depictions now. I'm not sure if we'd even be able to tell if a dinosaur was even poisonous anyway.

The dilophosaurs in the book don't have frills but they did spit poison. The scientists mention this caught everyone off guard when the first ones hatched and developed. Basically Crichton's way of furthering the book's theme of "we really have no idea what we're doing".

As for the accuracy of how the dinosaurs are portrayed, it's important to remember Crichton spends a good deal of time in both books stressing how the dinosaurs aren't true dinosaurs. In universe they're genetically-engineered movie monsters made in approximation of dinosaurs. Crichton knew very well his dinosaurs weren't accurate and that was intentional. Despite being a brilliant scientist, it honestly seems like he just kind of hated science and thought humanity would really fuck itself over with it.

 

[cumrobbery]

I'm just going to say that I think the idea that any significantly large theropod had feathers is pretty illogical. Why would a 20 foot tall beast that does not A. Fly or B. Live in a cold climate need feathers? Unless they directly evolved into birds (Which the large carnivores obviously didn't) they probably didn't have feathers or at least grew out of them as they matured. I've yet to see any logical reasoning or convincing evidence that shows that any large carnivores sported feathers when fully grown.

 

[Woodcutting bot]

Quetzalcoatlus. The biggest flyer with a minimum wingspan of around 11 metres. It would have been amazing to see such a large animal fly around.

I wonder how much extra weight it could carry while maintaining flight

Spoiler

 

[Overcast]

I've read somewhere stating that T-Rex's are theorized to be scavengers rather than full on predators. Can anyone confirm that?

Anyway, I don't really get the whole Feather debate. So what if what dinosaurs actually look like probably don't match what we envisioned them previously?

I can understand being nostalgic about the older designs. (As a little kid, dinosaurs were to me what trains are to Autists) But the entire point of archaeology and science on dinosaurs is to figure out and understand the creatures that ruled the Earth before we did.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

I've read somewhere stating that T-Rex's are theorized to be scavengers rather than full on predators. Can anyone confirm that?

That's one of the longest-standing controversies in paleontology. At this point though, most paleontologists state T-Rex was a mix of both: it hunted when it had to, and scavenged when it could.

 

[Overcast]

That's one of the longest-standing controversies in paleontology. At this point though, most paleontologists state T-Rex was a mix of both: it hunted when it had to, and scavenged when it could.

Makes sense. I mean even modern day predators have to take into account how big or healthy their potential food source is. They'd wind up severely injured or dead otherwise.

 

[beansntoast]

I've read somewhere stating that T-Rex's are theorized to be scavengers rather than full on predators. Can anyone confirm that?

that theory never made much sense to me, all carnivores big and small we have today are neither scavengers only nor predators only. most predators prefer to scavenge as it requires much less energy and is less dangerous and animals we typically see as scavengers, like vultures for example, also hunt small game from time to time. scavenging alone can't sustain a carnivore, the natural death rate of their prey just isn't high enough, so if this model doesn't even work with our "tiny" modern today carnivores, I highly doubt it would've applied to a huge warm blooded dinosaur. (being warm blooded takes a lot of enrgy after all)

the only true scavengers I know of are detrivores, like carcass eating insects and worms and stuff, they're tiny so they don't need much, but most also eat rotting plant matter.

also hasn't there been evidence that tyrannosaurs killed triceratopses by biting their frill and ripping their head off? I remember reading that this was theorized bc they found quite a few decapitated triceratopes with tyranossaur bite marks on their frills.

edit: oh I already posted this in the podcast thread but might as well post it here too: http://www.pasttime.org/
do any of you guys listen to this? I used to but didn't have time for it recently so i have to catch up a bit. I find their new layout a bit hard to navigate though

 

[Syaoran Li]

My favorite dinosaurs are Tyrannosaurus Rex (yes, casual, I know) and Utahraptor.

Utahraptor was like a Velociraptor on steroids. Unlike Jurassic Park, the real life Velociraptor was approximately the size of a turkey or large pheasant.

Can we also use this thread to discuss other extinct prehistoric creatures such as Pleistocene Megafauna or the reptiles of the Permian era? And where do prehistoric hominids fit in this thread? If it's cool with the OP, why not discuss the whole shebang of prehistoric life?

I've loved dinosaurs ever since I was a kid. While I do prefer envisioning them with scales and not feathers (as that's what I sort of grew up with), I can accept that in reality, most carnivorous dinosaurs did have feathers. I also was a fan of the concept of the caveman archetype back then, so I'm wondering if we can also discuss hominids (excluding modern Homo Sapiens, of course).

 

[DumbCWCQuote]

Microraptors I know it's genus but the three species we know of are so similar that some studies speculate they may be a single species, I like them because I find them kind of cute in a weird way.

 

[Vocaloid Ruby]

I'm not interested in dinosaurs as much as I am ancient animals. I don't know Dinosaurs just LOOK unappealing too me maybe because it's more of a guy thing?

But what I do know is that hatzegopteryx scare the crap out of me.

 

[melty]

Anyway, I don't really get the whole Feather debate. So what if what dinosaurs actually look like probably don't match what we envisioned them previously?

It's probably the same spergs who complain about Pluto

I'd like to see some pictures of whats considered accurate dinosaur depiction with feathers. I'm a complete pleb but this thread is p interesting & informative.