Did sauropods really have those weird neck things? I'm intrigued. We going to watch this together next week or what?

Did sauropods really have those weird neck things? I'm intrigued.
We going to watch this together next week or what?

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, but where can I download it?

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    here's your speculation-free sauropod you autists

    oh wait, some speculation was involved in arranging these. Guess you just get a pile of loose bones then

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its all made up

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dinosaurs never existed and paleontology is a hoax.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Am I the only one who never quite understood why T. rex being possibly a scavenger was seen as a big deal? If you look to birds, vultures in our modern day are massive and literally are able to fight and push around eagles with their raw size and mass.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      to the scientific community it seemed wrong because there probably weren't enough corpses laying around to feed the relatively large numbers of T. rex that existed.

      to the public it ran contrary to traditional ideas of T. rex as some otherworldly monster running around killing everything.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's a difference of up to 31 pounds for the largest vultures to up to 15,000 pounds for the T. rex on what's meant to be an obligate scavenger. The amount of food a warm blooded animal of that size would need to sustain itself on a diet of pure carrion is absurd. And what is there to scavenge from, Dakotaraptor? That's not going to be taking down something the size of an Edmontosaurus or Triceratops, so with no other large predators in the area to scavenge off of, T. rex would need to just wait around for its prey to die of old age or disease, or else take the scraps of something less than 1/15th its mass. It's not to say that T. rex never scavenged, because any predator is absolutely an opportunist, but for T. rex to be an obligate scavenger is an absurd notion that never should have garnered as much traction and attention as it did.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      We have fossil evidence of T. rex predation now so this is all moot but it was controversial because there are a lot of parts of T. rex that just clearly resembled a predator, it's not like a vulture where it doesn't have the weaponry to bring down the prey items around it
      Yeah it had excellent smell but it also had exceptional sight and hearing
      The herbivores around it basically turned into tanks with bony armor and T. rex turned into a superheavy carnivore had a bite that was specialized for crushing bone, so even the evolutionary gridlock just makes it seem really obvious
      If you're talking about the meltdown from fanboys then it's because Horner's logic really came into the limelight in Jurassic Park 3 when he used it as part of his explanation for why the Spinosaurus was able to kill the T. rex

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sorry when I said "doesn't have the weaponry to bring down the prey items around it" I don't mean that vultures are incapable of killing, just that they aren't, you know, capable of being lions

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah. I think Dakotaraptor might be able to take down large herbivores if it attacked in groups, but at the time Dakotaraptor hadn't been discovered if I'm remembering right.

          as you say, it's a moot point now.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also I guess in addition to this

      to the scientific community it seemed wrong because there probably weren't enough corpses laying around to feed the relatively large numbers of T. rex that existed.

      to the public it ran contrary to traditional ideas of T. rex as some otherworldly monster running around killing everything.

      scientists were skeptical of the idea because it would mean most dinosaurs in the Hell Creek and analogs would have no predators because rex was the only thing big enough to kill them.

      It's pretty much impossible to find any modern fauna outside of islands where there's 0 large predators. It just doesn't make sense. Even the situation of rex being the ONLY large predator in the fauna is pretty weird. In fact that seems to indicate it was such a great predator that no others could compete with it. A very rare situation both now and in the past.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mayh reviow: https://ichthyoconodon.wordpress.com/2022/05/27/prehistoric-planet-episode-ranking/

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, the fucking didn't. Jesus christ, I hate modern science. It's so blatantly politically charged.
    >No no no guys, the t-rex represents toxic masculinity. We need to make it a vegetarian scavenger that loves children and sings songs. We need men to be less aggressive.
    >BUT THE TITANOSAURUS TOTALLY HAD AIR SACS IN ITS NECK BRO! THIS IS TOTALLY REASONABLE!

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, this is Jurassic park spitting cobra and frilled lizard tier.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2022/05/25/prehistoric-planet-promotes-several-pterosaur-myths-in-flamboyant-flyers/amp/

    >Not sure why they chose to animate a largely imagined nyctosaur based on fragments, rather than animate a more complete specimen (Fig 1), requiring less imagination.

    But I know precisely why they chose Barbaridactylus. Because it's one of Nick Longrich's pets. This show has the most cancerous assemblage of all the worst names in paleontology working on it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Go off more on these people, Anon. I'm a extant-animalfag and have very little knowledge on who these people are, except from how bugman and queer their twitter profiles look.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Bad mouths Nick Longrich.
      >By using David Peters a source.

      Bruh.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >This show has the most cancerous assemblage of all the worst names in paleontology working on it
      >cites David Peters

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    RULES OF NATURE

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    it looks so shit,
    i mean cmon, in current year they should be able to do better.

    and its going to be the same dino's we've seen a million times before again as well
    Trex
    Ceratopia
    Thyreophora
    Pterosauria
    Supersaurus

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dinomedia is doomed to eternally remake the same dinos just like Hollywood keeps remaking Batman, Spiderman and X-Men.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      We're extremely limited in what ecosystems we can explore. Cretaceous North America was really just captured the best in the fossil record.
      I mean maybe there's some chinese ecosystems captured better, but it's all fairly new, not really as well studied stuff.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >all of Pterosauria "one 'dino'"
      ?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It would be nice to see something that focuses on edmontosaurus for a change

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Would be boring as shit, like watching a documentary about an elk or moose. But not actually as boring as that because it’s still a dinosaur.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        you should watch March of the Dinosaurs, its main plot follows edmontosaurus migrating from the arctic to southern feeding grounds for the winter. Has kind of dated cgi but not terrible

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have already watched the first episode. It's pretty much Planet Earth but with dinosaurs. No talking heads scientist, except for David Attenborough giving the intro.
    Pros:
    >Special effect is great. There are lots close-up shots and they look as photo realistic as it gets
    >Pterosaurus chase scene
    >Mosasaurus fight
    >Soundtrack is solid, though nothing too memorable aside from the main theme unfortunately
    >The speculative parts are still within reason (probably the largest one is the Ammonite mating behavior which AFAIK is based on some type of squid irl)
    >Covers lots of species that I have zero knowledge before

    Cons:
    >Due to it's format many of the narrative felt too short compared to the Walking With series
    >Some scenes in the reef segment felt a little too modern, but nothing too immersion breaking personally.

    The T. rex from that one clip appeared in the first segment, it was shown eating dead Archelon while it's babies are hunting the hatchlings. There is a separate bonus content where they explain the idea behind the swimming T. rex.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      The young T. rex in the beach clip that was released a while ago is made for promotional purpose only by the way. The narration and music is different in the actual episode. The dad rex also doesn't gently greet the baby like in the clip, it was busy ripping apart the dead archelon while the babies are picking up the scraps and messing around.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Soundtrack is solid, though nothing too memorable aside from the main theme unfortunately
      I thought the music when the baby pterosaurs were scaling the mountain was excellent

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >that little one who makes it to the beach but gets swallowed up by that big motherfucker
        Poor little guy, same with the baby T-Rex.

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    So apparently there is already a torrent out there, but I'll only know if it's the real thing in 30min or so. Since I don't come here at all normally, is there any specific place you get your natural documentaries or it's just out there on the torrents and such?

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    quak

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    What time does this come out?

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    All dinosaur models are based on some old fart's imagination when looking at a pile of bones. For all we know, they indeed breathed fire and terrorized villages, but everyone thinks it's magically "science!!" when they watch a movie of dinosaurs fighting each other on an ancient planet on BBC.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >based on some old fart's imagination when looking at a pile of bones
      They're now based on some geek retard chud's imagination, anon.

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I appreciate the fact that they didn't just cop out and make Nanuqsaurus pure white like nearly every other reconstruction of it does.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't like how small it looks. I think it was meant to be at least Gorgosaurus size

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Seems they went on the high end of the conservative size estimate of 6m, compared to Gorgosaurus' 9m

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's good they didn't but the feathers are still retarded.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        how would it survive the cold without plumage? almost nothing today can withstand freezing temperatures without plumage or fur except arthropods and fish who just freeze solid and thaw

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I mean the Cretaceous Arctic was much warmer than depicted here, it barely even snowed.

          I do think it had feathers, but it could plausibly survive without them.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >fish who just freeze solid and thaw
          Huh?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous
            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              That’s really fucking cool. Thanks Anon, I learned something new today

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                wood frogs can do it too

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It being white like a snowy Owl makes more sense.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      But it's shown in the snow here? We have documented color changes in several species regarding environmental pressures. Being white in the snow is a huge boon, but I guess we still get black/grey wolves

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The placement of the display structures are literally just on top of where the internal air sacs have already been reconstructed to be in sauropods so their placement is actually conservative if anything. Since air sacs were vital to allowing sauropods to attain their huge sizes, a external air sacs that signal that the internal ones function are a pretty logical addition, if speculative. All things considered a female sauropod would probably find a mate that had nice strong buoyant air sacs very sexy.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      > a external air sacs that signal that the internal ones function are a pretty logical addition
      ??? The fuck does that work?

      the display sacs and the internal ones aren't necessarily the same thing
      >What if a popped balloon gets infected?
      Then bad luck, same as anything else with an inflatable sac structure

      see [...] and [...]

      So you’re telling me it now has 2 types of air sacs? Ones that do what I guess air sacs have to do, and the stupid display ones? Uh, what modern animal does that?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Uh, what modern animal does that?
        literally any bird with any kind of external inflatable sac/pouch does that

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah but they don’t have giant long necks .

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How does that make it different in any way?

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              2 vastly different physiologies

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                And inflatable display structures are one of the most common features you see across animals with entirely different physiologies. Camels, seals, birds, etc

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Neither one of those 3 are giant sized. Do whales have inflatable display structures?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're saying those animals aren't comparable because they're not big, then you use whales an an example even though they're not comparable because they have totally different ecologies. Why does size dictate whether or not inflatable display sacs work?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                ......uhhhh, because size effects the animal's physiology?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                holy shit i can tell you are infuriatingly autistic in any kind of discussion.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >do whales have inflatable display structures?
                Well

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                How do we compete?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                id like to deep throat that

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Whales live in the water

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              2 vastly different physiologies

              I think anon is trying to say that air sacs might be unreasonable because of the weight that comes with giant size. There’s a huge mass difference between a sauropod neck and a living animal’s. The pressure on those necks would be much more
              But since we have found skeletons with a spot for the air sac, the point is moot

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think the thought process was like
            >Dinos can get that big becase they have bird's respiratory system, where they just have air sacs all over the body to deliver air instead of using the lungs to pump it
            >Sauropods have these air sacs all along their neck ofc.
            >thus, in some species, it may be used as part of display structure, to boast about their fitness.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              I mean that’s like using crutches you need to stand up as a tool for you to dance around at the same time. Are they support structures or display structures?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Are they support structures or display structures?
                false dichotomy

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                > the air sacs aren’t support structures
                What are they then genius?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                who are you talking to?
                I'm saying the can be both and usually are.

                what do you think a false dichotomy means, retard?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                > the can be both and usually are.
                So the elephant seal’s stupid nose air sax helps it support its massive weight?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                elephant seal noses are in no way comparable to pneumatization in sauropod necks. They're not even inflatable anyways

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So the air sacs of camels help it support its massive weight too?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Again in what way is that comparable to the air pockets in a sauropod

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Those two examples were used in the last thread to justify the stupid ballon’s on the sauropods

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                They were used as examples of inflatable sacs in living animals, not in reference to the pneumatization of sauropod necks. The air sacs within the neck of a sauropod and the speculative balloon things in the show aren't the same part of the structure. The only connection there is that the balloons are inflated by the air in the neck when needed

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Fuck off. A camel isn't the size of a literal land whale, or are you going to start questioning the skeletal remains of sauropods?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Camel aren't bird

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                What did you think support means?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Support can also mean aid. Presumably in survival. Welcome to the English language, you're going to hate it.

                >literally the abdomen, necessary to hold organs
                The flaps are on the sides of the abdomen, I'm not talking about the entire abdomen
                >gullet, part of the digestive system
                They're not in any way part of the gullet
                >increased lung capacity while diving
                The air sacs are only inflated during display, while diving or doing normal activity they are entirely deflated and serve no purpose in respiration

                The flaps are on the sides of the abdomen
                not true but even so, you think a spider doesn't need the sides of their abdomen to survive?
                >They're not in any way part of the gullet
                why do you think we call them gular sacs?
                > while diving or doing normal activity they are entirely deflated and serve no purpose in respiration

                >The hood begins to inflate as the seal makes its initial breath prior to going underwater. It then begins to repetitively deflate and inflate as the seal is swimming.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The purpose of this happening is for acoustic signaling, meaning that it occurs when the seal feels threatened and attempts to ward off hostile species
                >It also serves to communicate their health and superior status to both other males and females they are attempting to attract
                Yeah, respiration isn't exactly much of the point. Especially seeing as only males have it.
                >why do you think we call them gular sacs?
                Because it's on the neck. Gular doesn't mean literally in the animal's gullet and used in digestion

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah, respiration isn't exactly much of the point.
                you chose to ignore those other points in your response so I did too.
                > Gular doesn't mean literally in the animal's gullet and used in digestion
                you should probably google some of this stuff before you make firm decisive statements about it. That's all I'm doing and it's pretty quick and easy to see where you're wrong.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The flaps are on the sides of the abdomen
                >not true but even so, you think a spider doesn't need the sides of their abdomen to survive?
                What the fuck are you on about? Clearly stated abdominal flaps, not abdomen. As in the flat structures that be raised up and down during display

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Clearly stated abdominal flaps, not abdomen.
                the entire abdomen is raised, but I said if you want to ignore that fact they still need the sides of their abdomen to survive.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The abdomen is raised, but the flaps on the sides are erected at the same time making the abdomen look about twice the size during the display. I suggest watching a video of the actual display. Maratus volans is named so because they used to think the flaps were used to fly before they knew about the displays

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I suggest watching a video of the actual display
                I did

                I am suggesting that the sides of the abdomen are necessary to the survival of the animal and serve a survival purpose (containing organs) in addition to being display structures.

                There are almost no organs in animals that are used solely for display. That's extremely rare. Possible, but very uncommon.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                They're entirely flat with no organs in them, the only thing inside are fluid channels used so they can be raised with blood pressure. picrel is a back shot where you can see the difference between the abdomen and the flaps

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I would speculate that the organs that produce the colors are solely for display, as they may be in bird feathers. That might be a possible example. But in both cases the underlying structures clearly aid in the survival of the animal.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I hate to keep going back to Gould, but as he pointed out sexual displays first had to evolve as a general adaptation. So at some point they were useful to survival before being exapted for display purposes, and in fact most such structures continue to serve their original function even after being exapted.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                air is really bad at supporting body weight
                >For a self-proclaimed Master of English, your ability to use it is incredibly poor
                Sometimes I forget you're actually retarded.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not even going to bother arguing with you. I've seen how a couple anons here are incapable of admitting the possibility of being wrong. I'm also not going to bother pointing out the several logical fallacies regarding your english language statement/other talking points. You are literally not worth my time.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Are they support structures or display structures?
                they can be both

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they can be both
                highly unlikely

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >highly unlikely
                What are you, a kindergartener?

                The entire visible body and behavior is for display. Animals don't fuck other animals that have fucked up body parts, even if those parts are necessary to survival.

                If anyone should know that, it's the incels of Wauf. Women literally won't have sex with you because your entire body and behavior is a mating display.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Most display structures also serve some other survival purpose. It's actually quite rare to find one that has no function for survival.

                Even handicap displays that make it harder for an animal can serve a purpose in survival. The classic example is peacock feathers that supposedly make them easier to hunt. But they also serve to excrete waste that the kidneys can't filter out. So they're all three categories, functional, handicap, and display.

                another example is human breasts, which are far larger than they need to be to feed babbies. Clearly a sexual display, but also useful stores of fat, and just like feathers and antlers, a good indicator of an individual that has no trouble finding food.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Structures used solely for display are fucking everywhere

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                so name some and I'll tell you why you're wrong free of charge.

                and even if you manage to be right a couple times we'd have to ignore the literal millions of display structures you're wrong about.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >abdominal flaps of peacock spiders
                >inflatable sacs on sage grouse
                >inflatable sacs on hooded seals

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >abdominal flaps of peacock spiders
                literally the abdomen, necessary to hold organs
                >inflatable sacs on sage grouse
                gullet, part of the digestive system
                >inflatable sacs on hooded seals
                increased lung capacity while diving, makes the animal appear larger to rivals and predators, and is used almost entirely for non-sexual vocalizations.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >literally the abdomen, necessary to hold organs
                The flaps are on the sides of the abdomen, I'm not talking about the entire abdomen
                >gullet, part of the digestive system
                They're not in any way part of the gullet
                >increased lung capacity while diving
                The air sacs are only inflated during display, while diving or doing normal activity they are entirely deflated and serve no purpose in respiration

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Stop

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah but they don’t have giant long necks .
            birds have much longer necks than you can see. They just don't straighten their necks very often.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm getting all flustered over here...

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous
  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is the opposite of shrink-wrapping. Obviously they had structures that didn't fossilised, but I am sure in a few years people will see our shit reconstructions and wince at was was obviously just making shit up, whilst they make shit up themselves. Paleontology is mostly fanfiction, so I welcome the wack. Getting angry over feathers or display balloons is like getting angry over Sonic having different colored arms.

    We had feathers, now display structures, what is the next "big thing" in paleontology?
    My vote goes to very complicated and speculative behaviour

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      That behavior thing is a few decades old. Started mostly with Maiasaurus and went on from there.
      Seen some push back recently on that. For example, papers disputing the idea that dromaesaurs were pack hunters, as it was unlikely they were smart enough for that, and the like. Tyrannosaurs as pack hunters is another I expect to see that on next.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was thinking more about courtship. "It you don't know what it was about for, then it was probably a display structure", we saw the Carnotaurus little arms, balloons and such, I now want the wackiest mating ritual theories getting attention

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thats one of those things thats inherent to the field. Like in archeology, every strange potsherd existed to be used in some kind of religious ritual or whatever. Just an easy explanation for some oddity.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >For example, papers disputing the idea that dromaesaurs were pack hunters, as it was unlikely they were smart enough for that
        Which is idiotic. Literally brainless organisms engage in cooperative hunting strategies.
        Dromaeosaurs not being pack hunters because the only evidence we have for it are foot prints indicating groups, which works just as well for the attack strategies and feeding patterns of Komodo dragons, and cooperative hunting being pretty damn rare throughout Tetrapoda, from the Carboniferous all the way to the present, makes more sense. This doesn't rule out some Dromaeosaurs engaging in cooperative hunting, of course, but all of them is... unlikely to say the least. It's like arguing that all cats are pack hunters because lions exist.
        But intelligence has literally nothing to do with whether an organism engages in group hunting or not. And I mean nothing. Not 'Little', not 'Not only', but actually nothing. Fucking unicellular organisms and jellyfish engage in group predation.
        It's not 'Organised', but that's exactly the point: The benefits of group behaviour occur regardless of whether it's discussed beforehand or happens by accident. And the latter is just as evolutionarily valid in terms of improving the probability of reproduction and thus transferring the trait as the former.
        'Groups, therefore smart' is a meme that needs to fucking die.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          we don't have footprint evidence of any raptors hunting in groups afaik

          the only evidence we have is multiple Deinonychus individuals fossilized around Tenontosaurus kill sites that are littered with raptor teeth. The problem with this evidence is that those same Deinonychus show evidence of having been eaten by other Deinonychus.

          So their "group" hunting was apparently a lot like a crocodile feeding frenzy where there's a good chance other crocs will be killed and eaten. Which isn't group hunting at all.

          Where intelligence comes in is the cooperative part. Not eating your neighbors. That requires some brains. Otherwise it's not "group" or "pack" hunting, it's just a lot of predators rushing in for a piece of a kill and often killing each other in the process.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So their "group" hunting was apparently a lot like a crocodile feeding frenzy where there's a good chance other crocs will be killed and eaten. Which isn't group hunting at all.
            This is kind of true but seems like we're starting to realise only now how complex the cooperative hunting in crocodilians can be

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >seems like we're starting to realise only now how complex the cooperative hunting in crocodilians can be
              one study that nobody has been able to reproduce.

              probably because crocs don't actually use cooperative hunting strategies.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Those crocodiles are blind btw

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what is the next "big thing" in paleontology?
      the penis size required for some of these things to mate. Like just look at kentrosaurus

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dinosaurs had human emotions, dinosaurs were genius level smart.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Dinosaurs were pro [current thing]!
        If you do not support [current thing] then you cannot be part of the paleo Comuneetea

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Calling Troodons in the next episode can make fire like cavemen

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    What confuses me is that the air sac bullshit is said to exist for a utilitarian purpose. i.e. support the weight of the sauropods. But here they are using the balloons for display purposes? And the balloons aren’t inside the skin but they extend outwards where they can pop? What if a popped balloon gets infected?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      the display sacs and the internal ones aren't necessarily the same thing
      >What if a popped balloon gets infected?
      Then bad luck, same as anything else with an inflatable sac structure

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      see

      are people accidentally mistaking gular sacs for air sacs? not that sauropods couldn’t of had a inflatable structure on their bodies by I have a hard time believing they are air sacs since those are usually connected directly to the rest of the respiratory system.

      and

      Yeah, I've seen Wauf use "air sac" for gular skin, vocal sacs in frogs, pulmonary diverticulae in theropods, pneumatic pleurocoels in sauropods, theropods, and birds, pneumatic sinuses in dinosaurs, and for the multichamber avian non-septate lung.

      as far as I can tell nobody here aside from you knows the difference between any of those structures.

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    he cute

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I hate when they just take patterns or designs from modern animals and stretch it out over a dinosaur body. That's clearly a barn owl's face with a muzzle attached.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        This, it's so lazy and uncreative.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >what the fuck? why are they guessing how dinosaurs looked? Why haven't they invented a time machine to collect live footage? What bullshit!
          Dinonerds are a embarrassing breed of nostalgiaturds.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            They aren’t even dinonerds, just fair weather fucks with a passing interest in dinosaurs. Ignore them. They’re easy to tell apart.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Whenever they do something creative like peacock plumes or neck ballbags, Wauf nerds online get upset.
          ftfy
          reddit, Facebook, Twitter love it

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because modern animals all have very different patterns (which are randomised for aesthetics and uniqueness)

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Facial discs aren't exclusive to owls. Even if its clearly based on one its not a 1 to 1 copy

        Do you see other insectivorous birds having facial discs like that? The barn owls face isn't super elongated like a nonavain dinosaur, which makes the facial disc much more useful since there isn't a big snout in the way

        >Do you see other insectivorous birds having facial discs like that?
        Harriers and some nightjars have them. Even kakapos do to some extent and they're not even insectivores

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Facial discs aren't exclusive to owls
          Not him, but did the feathers have to go all the way down to the tip of its snout in that very barn owly way? Does it have to be the exact same color palate as a barn owl? I have no problem with it having face disks, but come on.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just 1:1 copying the Barn Owl patterning without at least changing the tone up a little shit (This is a nocturnal animal I thought, so shouldn't they go with a darker color scheme? Or one that matches the desert at night?). This is just a bad habit a lot of paleoartists seem to have. Though technically its as valid a coloration as any.
            I don't actually mind the feathers going to the tip of the snout. The way I see it feathers would continue as far up the face as they could until they start getting in the way of eating, and since they've characterized it as a sort of anteater, this works out fine to me.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I don't actually mind the feathers going to the tip of the snout
              I actually would have liked it as well if they hadn't used it to make it look like a barn owl beak (it's even the exact same color). But yeah, my biggest problem with the design is the color scheme; if it didn't have that, the other features wouldn't stand out as looking like they belong on a barn owl.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is the main complaint I've seen so far that isn't retarded so it seems like a pretty solid show

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've got no problem with anything other than that, and that there's been a lack of therapod hunting scenes.

                it looks so shit,
                i mean cmon, in current year they should be able to do better.

                and its going to be the same dino's we've seen a million times before again as well
                Trex
                Ceratopia
                Thyreophora
                Pterosauria
                Supersaurus

                's picture tells me my last complaint will be met in later episodes. The animation and shots are good (I don't know why people say they suck), the designs are nice and mostly (bar the mononykus) stick to what we know, and it's easy to digest. It's a nice show!

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nature doesn't deviate much from what works. See convergent evolution as one example in general. I mean, we know microraptor more or less looked like a grackle in dino form for example.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          But what's the chance that mononykus had one when insectivorous birds don't?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I agree, its so lazy and feels wrong.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Designs in nature repeat time and time again. Time is a flat circle.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://twitter.com/albertonykus/status/1529173580998647810
        ^ rather interesting thread regarding the evidence for this particular animal's shown features - I hadn't realised it was so present!

        The pattern does actually deviate from Barn owls; the hide lacks their spots and dark patches. I do agree it's quite similar but wouldn't call it outrageous. Such colours would do good for an animal in that kind of desert habitat - sand hasn't much changed colour after all.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Can u even english

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Especially when they copy a nocturnal animal that flies, as a reference to a diurnal animal that does not. Also, someone mentioned the desert? Why would a desert animal have fur?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Especially when they copy a nocturnal animal that flies, as a reference to a diurnal animal that does not
          facial disk in owls is used to amplify hearing. Mononykus had excellent hearing, as do owls. So it makes sense if a person isn't completely dumb.
          >Why would a desert animal have fur?
          gets cold at night.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why would a desert animal have fur?
          Ever seen a Bactrian camel?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >e.d.g.e
      cringe

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        once he retweeted a pro chud meme I lost all respect for him

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The way he speaks and the reddit-isms (pupper, heckin, chonker, bois) in his speech put me off terribly.

        once he retweeted a pro chud meme I lost all respect for him

        >pro chud meme
        Why do these online paleo people like this type of unnatural shit so much? Isn't it in complete opposition to believing in the power of nature and biology to support something like that?

  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I was not expecting see this goddamn

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      wtf??? someone help him!!

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Can't believe the camera man just stood there and did nothing! >:(

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fucking bullies >:(

  24. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    You should see Wauf seething over this show right now, same thing has happened in several threads

  25. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I guess feathers don't look so bad now do they Wauf? Next time don't complain and remember it can always get worse

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      but those look cool though.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          What level does he evolve?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          How come one has back legs and the other doesn't? Seems easy to find the correct option

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The guy responsible for the first image believes in obligate pisc Spino bro, it's over

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Elephant Seal Spino is and always has been a speculative evolution shitpost imagining what would happen if spinosaurids just kept adapting further and further into the aquatic lifestyle.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            if their legs shrank by half in a couple million years of evolution it's reasonable to conclude they'd be completely gone in another couple million years.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think the meme reconstruction is based on the fact that we haven't found any spinosaur leg bones.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Am I the only person who doesn't mind big weird Elephant Seal Spinosaurus idea lol? It's much more unique and interesting than people who treat it like T-Rex with a sail, it's truly one of a kind.

  26. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its speculation, but air sacs are such a common display structure its well within what was possible. I imagine at least one sauropod species would have air sacs for display

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      are people accidentally mistaking gular sacs for air sacs? not that sauropods couldn’t of had a inflatable structure on their bodies by I have a hard time believing they are air sacs since those are usually connected directly to the rest of the respiratory system.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was thinking more stuff like hooded seals or sage grouse

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >people accidentally mistaking gular sacs for air sacs
        What inflates the gular sacs, smartass?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, I've seen Wauf use "air sac" for gular skin, vocal sacs in frogs, pulmonary diverticulae in theropods, pneumatic pleurocoels in sauropods, theropods, and birds, pneumatic sinuses in dinosaurs, and for the multichamber avian non-septate lung.

        as far as I can tell nobody here aside from you knows the difference between any of those structures.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I assume it's mostly for the sake of simplicity and/or being too lazy to look it up

  27. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    "But they are all of the dinosaurs to birds who isnt to say that some turned into mammals"

    one of my normie friends just sent this to me can someone translate pleased

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'd wager they meant "But they all say dinosaurs turned into birds but who's to say some didn't turn into mammals"

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry I don't speak retard

  28. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    they had air sacs in their necks but them being able to inflate and come out of the skin is a speculation

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >they had air sacs in their necks
      this is also not known. They had holes in their bones that were full of air, like modern birds, but it's not clear that they were connected to air sacs like modern birds have. These are 2 different types of structure.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >this is also not known.
        https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2016.1111898
        https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/abs/vertebral-pneumaticity-air-sacs-and-the-physiology-of-sauropod-dinosaurs/22C8C9E2378D8DCCD32BE689459EF620

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Look, like I said last time. It's exciting if true because it would settle Ornithoscelida.

          but with all due respect to the authors, and I respect one or two of them a lot...

          it's going to take more than one skeleton out of thousands to convince anyone it's true.

          Similar situation with Ibrahim's Spinosaurus. Very exciting if true but nobody is going to believe it without a bit more evidence.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          the biggest problem with this

          the alternative to this
          [...]
          is that the avian flow-through lung evolved twice convergently which is frankly far more absurd than the idea that feathers evolved repeatedly. And that's pretty fucking absurd also.

          is that while fur evolved multiple times in mammals and is analogous to feathers,

          the avian lung NEVER evolved in mammals even though it's far more efficient than the mammalian septate lung. And yet we're supposed to believe it evolved not once but twice in dinosaurs despite mammals living at that same time and mammals literally having evolved much longer than dinosaurs did.

          to believe that we'd have to suggest either some dinosaurian propensity towards evolving lungs in their bones or some mammalian course of evolution that prevented that sort of thing. Neither one makes sense. But it may still be true because evolution doesn't always make sense.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            finally there's the question of why theropods and sauropods had osteological pulmonary diverticulae and birds later lost them.

            but that's a question already since we know it happened in theropods. The most reasonable answer is that theropods evolved pulmonary diverticulae during times of high CO2 and reduced O2 while birds lost them when the atmosphere changed to allow more oxygen.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >The most reasonable answer is that theropods evolved pulmonary diverticulae during times of high CO2 and reduced O2 while birds lost them when the atmosphere changed to allow more oxygen.
              this is borne out by paleoclimatology

              in fact gigantic theropods and their avian lungs and pulmonary diverticulae evolved in an atmosphere so rich in CO2 and poor in free oxygen that a human couldn't survive in it. If you had a time machine and went back to the time of the dinosaurs you'd likely die of hypoxia because your lungs aren't efficient enough to survive when they did.
              The only people that might survive back then are Sherpas or residents of the Andes in South America.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the avian lung NEVER evolved in mammals
            Well the groups that became the mammals and the dinosaurs respectively split off from each other a long long time ago (way before dinosaurs ever evolved) and thus had time for random mutations to occur thus causing a significant difference in available hardware to these groups.
            >And yet we're supposed to believe it evolved not once but twice in dinosaurs
            It may not have considering that the sauropods are closely related to the therapods so these features could be ancestral to both groups before they diverged from one another.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >thus causing a significant difference in available hardware to these groups.
              yes, this suggests that Gould was right and Dollo's law is based on the closure of evolutionary paths. As much as I love Gould I suspect he was only right over short periods of time and Dollo fails over long periods.
              >these features could be ancestral to both groups before they diverged from one another.
              yes that's what I mean by settling Ornithoscelida

              but to pretend they both followed the exact same path of evolution from a very primitive ancestral state is frankly unbelievable.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >to pretend they both followed the exact same path of evolution from a very primitive ancestral state is frankly unbelievable.
                not impossible, just unbelievable

                it's going to take more than one skeleton to make anyone believe it. It may be true but nobody believes it without a shitload of evidence.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              basically what this suggests is that sauropods are a derived branch of theropods. This is sorta the basis of Saurischia, but it's not supported by any fossils of common ancestors.

              It may be true, but that's currently unknown.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And yet we're supposed to believe it evolved not once but twice in dinosaurs
            have you ever consider that avian style lungs did not evolved twice but are basal to dinosauria as a whole or at least to saurischia ?
            it's not that umbilivable when you consider evidence of basal dinosauriforms where already transitioning to more avian style repiration system
            https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.180983

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >have you ever consider that avian style lungs did not evolved twice but are basal to dinosauria as a whole or at least to saurischia ?
              of course

              there's no real evidence for it outside of cretaceous theropods though. It undoubtedly was evolving before the cretaceous, but wasn't leaving proof in the form of flow-through sinuses in bones.

              that paper and the paper on sauropods are possible indications that the system was evolving, but not proof that it had evolved. The actual proof is that both birds and other theropods had them in the cretaceous, and birds split off in the late jurassic, so they evolved some time before that.

              if they were basal in saurischia then sauropods and theropods lost them and then evolved them all over again.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >they had air sacs in their necks
      this is also not known. They had holes in their bones that were full of air, like modern birds, but it's not clear that they were connected to air sacs like modern birds have. These are 2 different types of structure.

      that was a bit confusing

      what I'm trying to say is birds have hollow bones and air sacs, but the air sacs don't connect to the bones so they're not really related in birds.

      they're clearly related in theropods. And not clearly related in sauropods.

  29. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    tbh any question about speculative paleontology can be summed up by "maybe but probably not"

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      all paleontology other than skeleton reconstruction is speculative, really

  30. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I mean they could have had inflatable display structures we'll never know so this is stuck in perma speculation territory but personally I don't like how they all look like super uniform water balloons. I wouldve preferred something more oblong and larger per sack.
    I'm personally looking forward to this as it looks nice and if successful it could encourage the paleo media to resurge in popularity and we may see other interesting time periods and not just the Cretaceous.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is NO evidence for neck sacks.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes that is what he said

Your email address will not be published.