Ayo what the fuck????

Ayo what the fuck????

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit, is this real? I never imagined an armored theropod could exist, the mf looks like a kid depiction of dinosaurs with spikes coming out everywhere

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lol, had not noticed to this day that thyreophorans did not have antorbital fenestrae. Did not even think it was a dinosaur at first.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly when I saw the minimised image of this in the catalogue a few days ago before I opened the thread I thought it was a spiky abelisaur

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can we go one dino thread without schizos?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >plural
      >more than one

  5. 1 month ago
    Omnios

    Looks like Jakapil wants to evolve into Godzilla. After a few million years, I can see a Godzillaesque animal evolving from it. Not 300 ft. tall; just about T.rex height.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      IT CAN'T BECAUSE GODZILLA IS A BASAL JAKAPIL

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How are they buliding complete skeletons with 2 bones?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Smol

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >furry neck
      kino

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >that fur
      >eyelashes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >eyelashes
      >fur neck
      >people are going bananas sticking feathers to every new discovery
      This is why we can’t have good things, also I highly suspect the person responsable for the CGI model is a furry

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >random fur
      I hate featherfags so much.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Three-toed feet? kinda cringe.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Was honestly convinced this was some scrapped JW dinosaur or a spec-evo concept before I saw it was an actual find.
    Also the name just sounds like a common name we'd use if it was alive today. Like, you see this in the zoo and without even looking at the name plaque, you just know it's a Jakapil

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    holy shit, that's so fucking cool

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So a bipedal ankylosaur of sorts from what I'm reading

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    armored bipedal veggiesaur? cute!

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it has the same problem prosauropods do-

    it already lost its front arms to the point it couldn't have evolved to become quadrupedal as they suggest.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moron what? This is from the Late Cretaceous, so what the fuck was it evolving into.
      And no, I don't care about your fag shit where T rex was a 4 legged lizard.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        basal means at the base of the evolutionary tree

        this doesn't depend on WHEN it lived.
        chimps are basal humans even though they lived long after humans evolved.

        let me know if I can help you with any of your other confusions about evolution, it's my pleasure.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          basal doesn't mean it stopped evolving once it branched off, you mental midget

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Humans didn't evolve from chimps retard

            Most embarrassing post on Wauf right now
            Aside from all the zoophilia

            Why do they give you internet access in the asylum?

            kek

            Blew your minds with fucking facts.

            Great white sharks are basal to Dunkleosteus even though great white sharks evolved millions of years after Dunkleosteus went extinct.

            basal and derived describe the morphology of the animal, not the temporal context or even the position in the tree.

            jellyfish are basal to humans. You guys are dumber than jellyfish.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Great white sharks are basal to Dunkleosteus
              You went too far with this one and have now overplayed your hand. Next time don't give up the fact that you're trolling so obviously. Also, you're going to have to change how you type now because it's pretty recognizable.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >actual explanation of bio terms
                >trolling
                you are a fucking retard. That's not a figure of speech, you're actually retarded.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're not going to salvage this anon, so stop trying.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              my dick is basal to your mothers lips

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Great white sharks are basal to Dunkleosteus
              Other way around.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Humans didn't evolve from chimps retard

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Most embarrassing post on Wauf right now
          Aside from all the zoophilia

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Chimp wife happy life

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why do they give you internet access in the asylum?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >chimps are basal humans even though they lived long after humans evolved.

          Not sure if thats how that works. I don't think there really can be considered a "basal" hominin since the living forms are so wildly different from both each other and the next living family group (gorillas). If any australopiths we're still around they could potentially take the title of "basal" human, but pan is an entirely separate lineage. Homo = human. If anything homo is closer to the "base" state than pan is (that state being something similar to a less specialized gibbon, most likely)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're so dumb. Basal = closer to the base. I.E. diverged earlier.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Basal = closer to the base. I.E. diverged earlier.
              No, it means closer to the condition of animals that diverged earlier.

              OP discusses an animal that is basal but did NOT diverge early in the lineage.

              this is common in paleontology because of ghost lineages. Archeopteryx is basal to birds, but evolved millions of years after birds did.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Archeopteryx is basal to birds, but evolved millions of years after birds did.
                No, it lived in the Middle Jurassic which is also when we see our first Coelurosaurian fossils. More derived birds started appearing in the Cretaceous

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              And I just said humans are closer to the "base" than chimps are, ergo chimps are more derived than we are. Knuckle walking was never the ancestral condition. The base state for apes is an arboreal biped (mixed life in the trees and on the ground). Chimps have respecialized back into a life in the trees. We (australopiths) simply stopped living in trees as much, favoring full bipedalism instead. Homo simply specialized EVEN further into bipedalism, with an added bonus of being the first full on predator ape species, WHILE still maintaining a lot of our arboreal traits (in reduced form).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Knuckle walking was never the ancestral condition.
                how about flying airplanes? Writing novels? Building cars?

                It's like you're trying to be obtuse.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's like you're trying to be obtuse.

                And it's like you can't read. Your original claim, which was
                >Chimps are basal humans, despite diverging later
                Is factually incorrect. Homo and Pan are sister lineages, with homo arguably being the more basal of the living hominins than pan (the more derived). Since "basal" and "derived" has to do with traits in comparison to the prior organism (in this case that would be the LCA of pan and homo, since there aren't any other living closely related hominins). Most fossil apes prior to the split were closer to australopithecina/early homo in morphology than Pan. Ergo, homo is arguably closer to the "base" then pan is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Most fossil apes prior to the split were closer to australopithecina/early homo in morphology than Pan
                examples?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danuvius_guggenmosi?wprov=sfla1

                >Its tooth anatomy is most similar to that of other dryopithecine great apes. Having both adaptations for hanging in trees (suspensory locomotion) and standing on two legs (bipedalism), Danuvius may have been very similar in locomotory methods to the last common ancestor between humans and other apes, which adds weight to the hypothesis that ape suspensory activity and human bipedalism both originated from a form capable of both.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin?wprov=sfla1

                >In the femur, the head is spherical and rotated anteriorly; the neck is elongated and oval in section and the lesser trochanter protrudes medially. While these suggest that Orrorin was bipedal, the rest of the postcranium indicates it climbed trees. While the proximal phalanx is curved, the distal pollical phalanx is of human proportions and has thus been associated with toolmaking, but should probably be associated with grasping abilities useful for tree-climbing in this context.

                >More recently, in 2017, human-like Trachilos footprints were found on the island of Crete in Greece. These are the footprints from fossilized beach sediments discovered near the west Cretan village of Trachilos. They have been dated to the similar time period, 6.05 million years before present.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                thank you

                I believe I understand your mistake.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Basal and derived is a phylogenetic term, it doesn't relate to perceived "closeness" to the ancestral form. Crocs are more derived than Thalassosuchians or Rausuchians even though they are much closer to the ancestral bodyplan and lifestyle seen in Phytosuchians
                But when you get two extant linages sharing a common ancestor, which one is more "derived" is mostly semantics. Like with Pan and Homo. You could argue in this case you need to take into account biological and morphological divergence, and since Pan is much more similar to the basal Orangutans and Gorillas compared to Homo, then it stands to reason to call "Pan" more basal than "Homo", even though phylogenetically they are equal

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >even though phylogenetically they are equal
                >le politically correct ~~*egalitarian*~~ wikipedia lingo
                They are not "equal" unless they accumulated the same amount of mutations or at least phenotypic adaptations since they split from their common ancestor.

                Since the chimp/human split we have like 5 taxa of chimp, 4 of them subspecies of a single species, and zero fossil taxa, while human lineage has potentially tens of species. Even if we were to go full commietard egalitarian and completely disregard the concept of "primitive traits" the obvious teleonomical hierarchy of things like increasing cranial capacity, still humans are more derived by sheer volume of phylogenetic events in our clade.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Flying airplanes? Writing novels? Building cares?
                All due to one organ getting bigger?

                Pygmy chimps are also way more basal than the chimp most people are thinking about yet humans still have more primitive traits.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If anything homo is closer to the "base" state than pan is
            kek

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >basal means at the base of the evolutionary tree
          and so it can have short arms because its last common ancestor with quadrupedal tyreophorans didn't necessarily have short arms
          but anyway I think the reconstruction is a bit of a strech from how little material we have

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >so it can have short arms because its last common ancestor with quadrupedal tyreophorans didn't necessarily have short arms
            it's not very basal with such an obviously derived trait.

            and it's not the size of the arms so much as the missing bones that are the problem. Animals don't usually lose entire sets of bones and then re-evolve them exactly like they were before.
            Dollo's Law.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >it's not very basal with such an obviously derived trait.
              you sound confused.
              Its "derived trait" (short arms) is unique to its lineage/clade which is BASAL relative to Tyreophora as a whole.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                how are traits weighted?

                can you have a single derived trait so unique and irreversible that it outweighs all basal traits together?
                Yes, yes you can.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >>can you have a single derived trait so unique and irreversible that it outweighs all basal traits together?
                what are you implying? That Jakapil is actually an higly derived species of the clade?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you're arguing semantics, i.e. saying nothing, without understanding the definition of the word. the term basal pertains only to phylogenetic position relative to another taxon, it has nothing to do with superficial similarities or dissimilarities in morphology

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the term basal pertains only to phylogenetic position relative to another taxon, it has nothing to do with superficial similarities or dissimilarities in morphology
                how do we determine the phylogenetic position of one extinct species to another?

                ah yes, the only possible way is via "superficial similarities or dissimilarities in morphology."

                also the complete loss of an organ that in part defines a clade is not "superficial." It is a very serious problem.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                we determine the phylogenetic position of one extinct species to another with an actual phylogenetic analysis like in the article. ancestry, of which morphology is only a frequently misleading indication, is the thing which actually defines clades. the reduced forelimbs which you're fixated on are an apomorphic rather than plesiomorphic character, so yes a superficial dissimilarity
                all this stems from your misinterpretation that anyone was claiming this thing was identical to the ancestral thyreophoran state, by the way. this tangent you chose to run off on really exposed your lack of understanding

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ancestry, of which morphology is only a frequently misleading indication, is the thing which actually defines clades.
                lol

                so how do you determine "ancestry" aside from morphology?

                you fucking nitwit

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                there's also genomics, which paleo taxonomy rarely has the benefit of. the actual point, which flew over your head, is that your logic is completely backwards; morphology doesn't dictate ancestry, and it's only sometimes the other way around

                >we determine the phylogenetic position of one extinct species to another with an actual phylogenetic analysis like in the article
                which is 100% morphology

                how does someone so stupid operate a phone or computer?
                seriously, does someone turn it on for you every day? Do you dictate this retardation for others to type? Do you even feed yourself?

                eyeballing one specimen and making uneducated guesses based on how it looks to you is not comparable to an analysis involving dozens of taxa and hundreds of characters
                absolutely none of what you've said has at all supported your original position, by the way

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >to an analysis involving dozens of taxa and hundreds of characters
                You talk like a fag and your shits all retarded. Teleonomy exists for a reason.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >eyeballing one specimen and making uneducated guesses based on how it looks to you is not comparable to an analysis involving dozens of taxa and hundreds of characters

                I said there's no way sauropods evolved from a bipedal ancestor that had lost wrist bones that sauropods have.

                armored dinosaurs have the same problem.

                learn to read first, reason second.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >we determine the phylogenetic position of one extinct species to another with an actual phylogenetic analysis like in the article
                which is 100% morphology

                how does someone so stupid operate a phone or computer?
                seriously, does someone turn it on for you every day? Do you dictate this retardation for others to type? Do you even feed yourself?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I am bothered by their assumption that it was more basal than Scelidosaurus. Why the fuck would they assume that when we know for sure bipedalism was more basal to the clade? Why the fuck put it closer to literally named "broadfoot" ankylosaurs and stegosaurs than to Scutellosasurus and Laquintasaura that were more intermediate between bipedalism and quadrapedalism?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >more basal
                Sorry, meant the opposite, "less basal"/"more derived".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >>can you have a single derived trait so unique and irreversible that it outweighs all basal traits together?
                what are you implying? That Jakapil is actually an higly derived species of the clade?

                This ankylosaur is both basal and derived.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I can't link the actual article but i can link the tweet
    https://twitter.com/yoofilos/status/1557749394182590464?t=g7_e5nmXmDqjQ1H2Laoeww&s=19

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No way, a real Dynamosaurus imperiosus

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      new frien 🙂

Your email address will not be published.