ITT: Share cool dinosaur facts.

ITT: Share cool dinosaur facts.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    could dinosaurs get the flu?

  2. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    ok

  3. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    They already suffered under influenza viruses. Imagine a fricking Brontosaurus having a sore throat

  4. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here's a fun fact: DINOSAURS ARE FAKE.
    All evidence was created by the BRITISH financed by israeli banks.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dinosaurs are real.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Seethe, dilate, Cope.

  5. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not sure if anyone here knows enough to help me. But I'm a little confused about something with Allosaurus. I commonly see two very different skull shapes, most notably the sorta shape of the snout. On some I see a wider, very rounded "U" shape and on others I see a much thinner skull with a more pointed "V" at the end. I've attached an image of two of the clearer image examples I could find of what I mean.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      the wide skull is made up from loose bones of a bunch of different allosaurus. The narrow one is actual skull from a single animal

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        also when the wide skull was assembled nobody had ever found an allosaurus skull, so the guy who put it together didn't know it was too wide.

        right before it was published, a full skull of allosaurus was found, but the dude couldn't go back and fix the wide skull so he just sent it out as is.

        Okay, so the thinner skull is the accurate one. I sorta thought as much but I was just finding so many (I assume older) reference images of Allosaurus that matched the wider skull so wasn't sure.
        Thanks.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          yes.

          they're also different species.
          the bottom one is one species, the top one is a composite of several different species including probably parts of the bottom species.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            Could you share more detail about this? Or at least point me where to look? I always have trouble finding good information on details like this. For example with Allosaurus, I only really see information on how A.Fragilis and A.Jimmadseni's skulls differ from side profile view, if they had differences only visible from other angles, I wouldn't know where to find out.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              Madsen's Revised Osteology has most of that info. The rest is in the 2 or 3 other allosaurus species osteologies

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Man, I understand that paleontolgy is sorta a useless science that needs to make money somehow, but its always tough in the information age to think about needing to actually buy books to get information instead of all the info being clearly available in some public online database. Thanks though.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Those are available free online to any student or scientist. You can find them with a bit of searching

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'd post links but I'm traveling rn

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >https://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/bulletins/b-109.pdf

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      also when the wide skull was assembled nobody had ever found an allosaurus skull, so the guy who put it together didn't know it was too wide.

      right before it was published, a full skull of allosaurus was found, but the dude couldn't go back and fix the wide skull so he just sent it out as is.

  6. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kent hovind might not be a pedophile but he sure is friends with some.
    Only real dinobros will understand.

  7. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    The maximum size an egg can be is about football sizes. The American one. Eggs need to breathe so a shell can't get passed that size. If you apply that scale of a chick sized trex it's eggs would be bb sized.

  8. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Racial slurs.

  9. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >dinosaurs
    >decades long arguing between paleontologists, nerds, and autists over how shitwienersaurus' rectal microfeathers being arranged clockwise instead of counterclockwise ruin everything (amount of rectal microfeathers found 1)
    >basically all other forms of prehistoric life
    >alright, this thing was basically a complete opposite of what we thought previously, everyone 'kay with that? yeah, sure, whatever man
    Why do dinosaurs attract so many autists?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      If I had to guess? They're big, have lots of variations and have a very large amount of categories they can be autistically organized into. Also, much like other things people can have as their 'special interest' like trains, they tend to learn about dinosaurs young and latch onto them their entire life. Sure, a kid might know the name of a trilobite, he might know what a woolly mammoth is, but big lizards is what the books and the shows all focus on.
      So you have very determined autists who have selected dinosaurs as their interest, and just like how his books MUST be arranged on his shelf in a certain way, dinos MUST be the the way he thinks they are or it is the absolute end of the fricking world.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      If I had to guess? They're big, have lots of variations and have a very large amount of categories they can be autistically organized into. Also, much like other things people can have as their 'special interest' like trains, they tend to learn about dinosaurs young and latch onto them their entire life. Sure, a kid might know the name of a trilobite, he might know what a woolly mammoth is, but big lizards is what the books and the shows all focus on.
      So you have very determined autists who have selected dinosaurs as their interest, and just like how his books MUST be arranged on his shelf in a certain way, dinos MUST be the the way he thinks they are or it is the absolute end of the fricking world.

      High IQ autists are actually busy studying bryozoans or inventing the next computer chipset

      dinosaurs are where the idiots settle. They still feel a need to categorize and collect esoteric data, but aren't smart enough to discover anything new and get all their info from children's books and television.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dinosaurs are cool and iconic so people really latch on to ideas of them sometime for silly reasons. I think using a big example like Velociraptor works, the public has the idea of JP's velociraptor, and learning its this small ground eagle looking thing bums them out, thing is, nonsense crazy fantasy intelligence they give them aside (which no Dinosaur has, closest being a fricking parrot or crow or something), there's TONS of agile scaley theropods with a much more similar size and shape to JP Velociraptor, but nobody will care about those because it's not Velociraptor. Even though Velociraptor is just a name.
      Similar stuff goes for Tyrannosaurus, I see everyone get mad that it's shown so bulky and kinda slow and all that, when like, again, it's not the only theropod, if you want a larger theropod with a thinner profile, you can look at any Allosauroid, If you want a fast theropod there's other groups as well. But T.Rex is the popular one with the cool name so everyone just projects their own image onto what they think it should be, rather than just appreciating what it is, or what current research believes it to be. If it feels like they're ruining your "favourite dinosaur", the reality is if these things were all still alive you'd probably have a very different favourite in the first place.

  10. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    When will the monotypic dinosaur genera maymay finally die out?

    When will we accept that most dinosaurs in the same subfamily where not any more different or phylogenetically or even temporally distant to each other than modern croc or sea eagles are to each other?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Chincom trannies and schizos are so obsessed with bashing each other over glorified hair none even noticed that Tyrannosaurus should be expanded to implement 4 more species.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it shouldn't.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes it should.

          We can't make a new genus for every slightly different species of Tyrannosaurus we find.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            How about just not making the "new species" and leaving T. rex the frick alone. You're constructing a false dichotomy here. The only valid argument is chronospecies.

  11. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    One thing that gets me about this schizo is his insistence that these chinese fossils are impossible because they preserve structures like feathers. This is while ignoring the fact that fossils of both feathers and fur on small animals similar in size to the ones found in China have been found in Germany. In fact, in the Eocene bats found near Messel they even found melanosomes in its fur just like in the feathers of Microraptor and Sinosauropteryx.
    He has to sit there and say that the Chinese can somehow fake fossilized delicate structures so immaculately that even the western paleontologists who studied the fossils couldn't tell they were fake. In fact, these fakes are so perfect that they're authenticity is indistinguishable from German fossils of feathers, fur, and the melanosomes found in those structures. That or he has to admit that he believes the field he's invested years of mental energy into has been faked since the 19th century when Archaeopteryx was found.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      One thing that gets me about this npc is his insistence that there is no fraud in the chinese fossil trade despite the chinese themselves openly admitting it. This is while ignoring the fact that nobody ever had a problem with Archaeopteryx except creationists (which this NPC argues exactly like). In fact, Archaeopteryx has been known of since the 1800s. He has to sit there and say that the Chinese can't somehow fake fossilized delicate structures despite them doing it constantly, there literally being papers published on the techniques and western paleontologists who studied the fossils consistently being fooled to the point of publishing paper after paper defending KNOWN frauds and hoaxes. This dumb butthole gets told day after day why he's wrong in great and elaborate detail, with links to the sourced documents and yet he still comes onto Wauf literally every single day to tell lies and defend other lies he knows are lies. And for what?

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Conflating a chinese villager gluing two weird rocks he found together to create a composite fossil for a quick buck with a concerted conspiracy by the Chinese Communist Party to create fossils with their sci-fi atomic etching machine so they can subvert a fairly niche intersection of biology and geology is moronic. There's no shortage of real reasons to despise the CCP, you don't need to invent one. Especially since it's obvious you're doing it so you can make the knee-jerk claim that a fossil with feathers on a non-avian dinosaur is fake without having to provide any real evidence for your claim.
        If you had links to irrefutable proof that Microraptor and Sinosauropteryx, the two animals I mentioned, and animals who've had specimens studied by western paleontologists, were fake you would have posted it. Instead you dedicated your message to childish attacks on the intelligence of anyone who approaches your outlandish claims of conspiracy with skepticism, especially when the very post you're responding to points out a glaring double standard you have towards the authenticity of fossilized integument like feathers and fur.
        Ironic that you claim your opponents argue like creationists when you're sitting there asserting that the Chinese can fake fossils so perfectly that western paleontologists who have access to real examples of fossilized feathers to compare these "fakes" to can't tell the difference. Then, when someone responds to this outlandish assertion with skepticism, instead of posting your evidence you ape out and call them NPCs, shills, or whatever other buzzword you can think of to imply a moral and intellectual failing on their part for not thinking that the entire field of Paleontology is in cahoots with the CCP to fake fossils that conflict with your own personal headcanon about prehistoric animals.
        I'll wait for you to post that one image that proves you believe composite fossils are evidence of the CCP's atomic etching machine in response.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Shut up now. All you do is repeat the same tired refuted bullshit over and over again. If you want to retread old arguments, look up my archived replies to your bullshit. Repeating myself is a waste of my time.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Idk why that nutjob would even bother responding to this.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seethe cope dilate, madame Butterfly.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              the paleontological field of the United States doesn't have a longstanding history of passing off government-sanctioned forgeries as genuine discoveries to the international scientific community so the comparison is somewhat strained

              K lmk when you're capable of creating an argument in response to

              https://i.imgur.com/AOEmXnL.jpg

              Conflating a chinese villager gluing two weird rocks he found together to create a composite fossil for a quick buck with a concerted conspiracy by the Chinese Communist Party to create fossils with their sci-fi atomic etching machine so they can subvert a fairly niche intersection of biology and geology is moronic. There's no shortage of real reasons to despise the CCP, you don't need to invent one. Especially since it's obvious you're doing it so you can make the knee-jerk claim that a fossil with feathers on a non-avian dinosaur is fake without having to provide any real evidence for your claim.
              If you had links to irrefutable proof that Microraptor and Sinosauropteryx, the two animals I mentioned, and animals who've had specimens studied by western paleontologists, were fake you would have posted it. Instead you dedicated your message to childish attacks on the intelligence of anyone who approaches your outlandish claims of conspiracy with skepticism, especially when the very post you're responding to points out a glaring double standard you have towards the authenticity of fossilized integument like feathers and fur.
              Ironic that you claim your opponents argue like creationists when you're sitting there asserting that the Chinese can fake fossils so perfectly that western paleontologists who have access to real examples of fossilized feathers to compare these "fakes" to can't tell the difference. Then, when someone responds to this outlandish assertion with skepticism, instead of posting your evidence you ape out and call them NPCs, shills, or whatever other buzzword you can think of to imply a moral and intellectual failing on their part for not thinking that the entire field of Paleontology is in cahoots with the CCP to fake fossils that conflict with your own personal headcanon about prehistoric animals.
              I'll wait for you to post that one image that proves you believe composite fossils are evidence of the CCP's atomic etching machine in response.

              .

              I actually might screenshot the post and use it as a pic rel any time I encounter you in the future because you're demonstrably incapable of responding to it. You lose again!

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >chink peons are totally different from chink "scientists"
                Then why do they arr rook same?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                American propaganda is and always has been so fricking pathetic.

                >UHH! Can you believe these SAVAGES have their own native culture?!?! That's not progressive at all! Time for genocide!
                Burgerworld has always been globohomo.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >UM NOT AN ARGUMENT SWEATY
                It's like I'm really on reddit!

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT FAKES ALL FOSSILS SO FEATHERS EXIST ON DINOSAURS TO MAKE PEOPLE GAY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE JURASSIC PARK
                wow that's quite the claim, do you have any evidence?
                >FRICK YOU CHINESE COMMIE SHILL, NPC, troony, REDDIT HOW DARE YOU NOT BELIEVE ME AND ASK FOR PROOF OF MY INSANITY

                inb4 you post that article about a composite fossil that you think proves that the chinese can somehow fake fossils of feather impressions and melanosomes

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >all this bullshit
                Are you being paid at least to act this histrionic? Please tell me you're not just doing this to whiteknight for STEMshit.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >deflecting instead of providing any evidence whatsoever
                Are you being paid at least to act this histrionic? Please tell me you're not just doing this because someone on twitter drew a fat T. rex with feathers.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Debating anything with a Hitlerian israeli caricature is pointless. Marinate in your seethe. We'll continue being right and you'll continue being a shill and liar. No amount of repetition of your rehearsed talking points can ever change this.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >i don't have any evidence so i'll call you buzzwords so i can convince myself that i haven't lost
                I accept your concession.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                You accept your own meds I hope, since you tell everyone to take theirs all the time.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                It got to you, did it?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >U mad?! U MAD!?! I WIN!! U MAD?!?!
                No, there's literally just no point in debating someone who isn't interested in the truth.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >there's literally just no point in debating someone who isn't interested in the truth
                This is the most ironic thing your schizophrenic ass has ever said.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can't even make an insult without self consciously referencing how much you don't like people doing it to you. No wonder you lose every thread!

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No point in debating someone not interested in the Truth!
                This you?

                >UM NOT AN ARGUMENT SWEATY
                It's like I'm really on reddit!

                >all this bullshit
                Are you being paid at least to act this histrionic? Please tell me you're not just doing this to whiteknight for STEMshit.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >there is some fraud therefore it is all fraud
        You argue like a creationist
        “One fossil turned out to be a pig tooth therefore my relatively recently made up religion is right and man was created out of mud 6000 years ago”

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Here we go! He's doing it! He's starting the cycle over again!

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            Everyone is the same person ook ook muhfuggin feathers jesus was an illuminati lizard the end times are coming feathers on dinos are turning me trans and nick longrich and brian engh are gangstalking me and replacing my holistic vitamins with estrogen
            -you

  12. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    COOL FACT: DINOSAURS DIDN'T REAL

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Incorrect, they did real and were created on the sixth day, so sayeth the lord

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        But why specifically melons?

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          they were hungry

  13. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    dinosaurs are not cool.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dinosaurs is absolutely cool.

  14. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Long time lurker, made my first video on creating my Carcharodontosaurus egg

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty cool anon.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      badass

  15. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    The point of the entire spiel is not trying to disprove science or whatever evidence we have about prehistoric animals, it’s to point out the “subversive culture” meme that plagues modern paleontology.
    Nobody is trying to say that ceratopsians and hadrosaurs never eat meat in occasion. Everyone knows modern herbivores like deer and cattle also partake in occasional carnivory.
    But going every 5 minutes saying “well you know what? No herbivores are true herbivores, Triceratops may have scavenged for carrion as seen in this gnarly paleoart!” will send the wrong message to the average layman who didn’t know any better. For a group who cries so much about pop-culture dinosaurs spreading misinformation to the mainstream crowd, the same people are also doing exactly the same from the opposite direction with their “dinosaur counterculture”.
    If you don’t believe me, just watch the average reception when someone pointed out that:
    >Tyrannosaurus had no feathers, and there are skin impressions in favor of this claim.
    They will defend tooth and nail, claiming that the skin impressions does not represent the entire body of the animal, and there’s a possibility that Tyrannosaurus is still partially feathered. Not saying that they are wrong, but it’s blatantly clear that they have their own personal pet-theory bias.
    In contrast:
    >here’s an artwork of Pachyrhinosaurus fully coated in winter feathers, despite being a ceratopsian
    The same people will handwave everything about the depiction. Justifying the inaccurate illustration as merely “artistic freedom” or “speculative exploration”. If it’s the other way around, and it shows an equally inaccurate depiction of a featherless dromaeosaur, their response would be way more different, and it’s mind-boggling how they could not see their own hypocrisy.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why? Because:
      Featherless dinosaurs are the “boring, uneducated normie take”, while feathered dinosaurs are the “enlightened, high IQ take”.
      I don’t believe that there are any “woke leftist propaganda” or whatever schizo theory surrounding modern armchair-paleontologist space, but I do believe that the field of interest is full off manchildren within the autism spectrum who likes to try very hard to sound smarter than the “uneducated neurotypicals” for a sense of intellectual gratification.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I don’t believe that there are any “woke leftist propaganda”
        >I do believe that the field of interest is full off manchildren within the autism spectrum who likes to try very hard to sound smarter than the “uneducated neurotypicals” for a sense of intellectual gratification
        These are the exact same thing, anon.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t think it is. Paleontology is a relatively niche interest. In the grand scheme of things, who the frick cares about the bones of extinct animals? There’s no political agenda to push that gives traction to whatever current thing is happening in the world. It’s just manchildren throwing a fit over a hobby just because they want to sound smart.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don’t think it is. Paleontology is a relatively niche interest. In the grand scheme of things, who the frick cares about the bones of extinct animals?
            >There's no "leftist" agenda
            >Regardless of the field, the talking points and debate structure never changes

            >Say something obviously false
            >When you get called out on it call everyone nazis
            >When it looks like too many people disagree with you, claim nobody actually cares
            Odd how mechanistic it all is.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yep. NPC midwits strike again.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I don’t believe that there are any “woke leftist propaganda”
        Unfortunately, you're wrong about that. The entire subversion agenda is entirely *culturally* marxist in nature. Literally. Now economically, it's typically more cutthroat libertarian. And the reason is the same as always - it's the upper classes pushing this horseshit. Marxist culture makes them feel big brain time, but they're actually venal parasites, so when it comes to actual economic policy their policy is to squeeze the lifeblood out of human society and nature until there's nothing left, while doing no actual work in or for society.

        >no u
        Most debate educated vegan.

        >No, actually herbivores are real
        >*TRIGGERED*
        Literally find something else to do with your time other than being a homosexual contrarian.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bingo.

      Why? Because:
      Featherless dinosaurs are the “boring, uneducated normie take”, while feathered dinosaurs are the “enlightened, high IQ take”.
      I don’t believe that there are any “woke leftist propaganda” or whatever schizo theory surrounding modern armchair-paleontologist space, but I do believe that the field of interest is full off manchildren within the autism spectrum who likes to try very hard to sound smarter than the “uneducated neurotypicals” for a sense of intellectual gratification.

      >Featherless dinosaurs are the “boring, uneducated normie take”, while feathered dinosaurs are the “enlightened, high IQ take”
      Probably this, but at the same time you'll still likely find a pretty high correlation of woke leftists among these self-appointed "enlightened, high IQ" takes. When we see sneering ivory tower intellectuals literally responding with "trust the science, chud!" tier responses to criticism (even in these threads) it's not much of a leap to make.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        There’s just something about paleontology that make autists think they’re the pinnacle of intellect from just knowing a bit more than just surface knowledge about dinosaurs. The only other specific niche interest that I know of which attracts so much concentrated pretentious autism is war history/weapons fans.
        The difference is, paleontology attracts left-wing autists while history&weapons attract right-wing autists.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're talking about a false dichotomy here though. One side of the paleontology debate is literally just fricking openly lying to advance their careers and has the full weight of academia backing them, since all academics' careers operate on the same system. The other side is annoyed by this. They're not equal. It's not "autism". It's people getting fed up with being openly lied to and their enemies trying to gaslight them 24/7.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the “subversive culture” meme that plagues modern paleontology
      It plagues everything in modern society. That's how this "mentality" (anti-mentality really) works. It has to have absolute dominance of all facets of public life. If there is one chink in the armor the entire system of lies may fall apart.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Case in point.
      >an artist decided to make a feathered Acrocanthosaurus for a game, purely out of artistic preference
      >comments are full of circlejerks of people with trans flags going “WAOW THIS IS THE BEST ACROCANTHOSAURUS EVER”
      And deep down you know this won’t be the same reception if someone decided to mod a scaly raptor purely out of artistic choice.
      The subversive mindset is real, whether you like it or not.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Dinosaurs where created by God on the 6th day of creation. Evolution is man made fiction.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A species of sauropod is said to be still living in the Congo river. It was reported as far back as the 1700s but never conclusively proven.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Editing dinosaur diorama video for YouTube. Should I include some facts about it or focus on the painting/building process.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >all carnivorous theropods are giant chickens with thick luscious lips.
    >all hadrosaurs are obese and can RKO any carnivore
    >all ceratopsians have pube-like quills and like to eat carrion
    >all sauropods are gigachads with no natural predators
    >”noooo! Dinosaurs aren’t intelligent, they’re only as intelligent as crocodilians!”
    What are some other contrarian paleontology memes that manchildren spout just to sound smart?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >raptors don't use their claws for scratching
      >dinosaurs can't roar
      >bringing up Jurassic Park

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >like to eat carrion
      Hadrosaurus snacking on baby birds when? Limiting the occasional meat-eating behavior that most herbivores show to only ceratopsians is boring.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Come to think of it: why does showing herbivorous dinosaurs engaging in this pretty common practice among modern herbivorous animals trigger so many autists? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJopqdzKSNQ

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >why does showing herbivorous dinosaurs engaging in this pretty common practice among modern herbivorous animals trigger so many autists?
          Because it lies in the presentation, and more importantly the motivation.
          Everyone knows herbivores like deer will take an occasional crack at an easy piece of meat, just like how wolves will very occasionally eat berries or chew on some grass (especially if they have digestive issues). That's nothing new.
          Now what would be really weird and should probably raise your eyebrows is if some zoologist came along and said
          >these animals aren't what you think!
          >wolves are actually heckin peace loving good boi herbivores while it's deer who are the viscious predators!
          >that's right chud, they don't fall in line with your childhood movie monsters, they're REAL ANIMALS™
          Well that my friend is what we call agenda. Especially if (when) it's accompanied by an illustration of a ceratopsid scavenging a tyrannosaurid for maximum subversion points, just to really drive the point home.
          >see! look who's eating who now! SUBVERTED!
          >so wacky!
          Like, if you could illustrate how a zebra might eat a baby bird on the ground without drawing it plunging its neck into a lion carcass. It's just a little on the nose.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I can't wait for you to drop dead so we can go back to having sane and normal conversation about dinosaurs

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not paleo-schizo if that's what you're getting at. I'm also trying restore sanity and normalcy to conversations about dinosaurs.
              Also, it's funny how someone earlier was like "hurr durr why do herbivores eating meat offend autists". It's autists who aren't offended by it and just take it at face value, because autists can't read people or understand motivations and therefore can't see what's really going on here. But I do.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not paleo-schizo
                kys

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm literally not him though. Why are you so mad friend? Want to talk about it?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                And your're right. This entire world is full of "well axchually" morons trying to prove that everything evil, wrong and stupid is good actually and you're a nazi if you disagree. This is what happens when you raise an entire generation on subversion.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Why are you so triggered by the concept of a herbivore. You should start asking yourself these questions. Something is deeply wrong with you.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no u
            Most debate educated vegan.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          israelite infested social science pushed the meat/predators bad narrative, turns out everyone likes meat and predators just prune the old and weak and help keep pest herd animals in check

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    dinosaurs le real even doe the supposed evidence for their existence is inconsistent

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      someone please prove him wrong

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    t-rex got BTC

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >angry threat display
    >this pose
    >mating dance
    >this pose
    >being in any mood other than “neutral”
    >this fricking pose
    What is it with this particular specific pose being such a meme in paleoart featuring raptors? It’s starting to become the dinosaur version of the soijak gape.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Some trannies saw a chicken on YouTube doing it and dinosaurs = chickens to them because they're mentally ill child predators and don't care about facts or dinosaurs.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Tbh liking dinosaurus as an adult is also a sign of mental illness.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          And?

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Can't find any homosexual-feather versions of triceratops, is there a reason for that?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You haven't seen the porcupine Triceratops yet? Here's a feathered ceratopsid.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Also

        >feathergay """art"""
        >the feet are wrong

        Literally, and I mean LITERALLY every single fricking time.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Because triceratops are already so homosexual, that even if you were to cover it in troony flag-colored feathers from the horns to the tip of its tail, it would just make it less gay overall.Nonetheless, this should probably be enough make you shit yourself with rage.

      https://i.imgur.com/YPdtWzJ.jpg

      >angry threat display
      >this pose
      >mating dance
      >this pose
      >being in any mood other than “neutral”
      >this fricking pose
      What is it with this particular specific pose being such a meme in paleoart featuring raptors? It’s starting to become the dinosaur version of the soijak gape.

      My theory is that most paleoartists are either furries and/or zoophiles and they find that using that pose for everything makes their dicks hard.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You think it's just a theory that all feathergays are furisraelites? Isn't it obvious?

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    COOL DINOSAUR FACT: At the rate of present anthropogenic warming, bird eggs will no longer be able to properly develop and all tropical bird species will go extinct by 2100.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Shut up, satan.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What a pathetic showing from the paleopseuds this thread. No matter how you seethe, dinosaurs will always objectively be what they were: scaled, cold-blooded reptiles and nothing you can publish or whine about on reddit or twitter will ever change that.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You stopped providing arguments and lost like several threads ago. Like you do in every single thread, freak. You got so insecure that you made this final cope post to try and feel better about yourself. You know you lost, again. Know your place when speaking to your betters

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Know your place when speaking to your betters
        >this coming from proletarian detritus
        Oof!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      didn't they literally find a skeleton of a dinosaur with feathers in tact

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Its all fake according to him. The dozens of fossils, all part of an elaborate plot to make deviantart or whatever.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The saddest part about your existence is these "fossils" aren't even fake according to me. They're fake according to the very frauds you worship. But for some reason that doesn't count to you.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            See

            [...]
            >Xu Xing is forced to admit
            >Implying an interview is forcing him
            You keep trying to make it seem like Xu Xing is faking a bunch of those fossils, when he’s consistently the one calling out fake fossils. He’s even the one who exposed archaeoraptor as a fake. Get better material

            You lost another thread.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I don't even understand what you're attempting to argue at this point, bot.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    barney if he real

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    from"Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism"
    A_Giant_Coelophysoid_Ceratosauria_Theropod_from_the_Upper_Triassic_of_New_Mexico_USA

    Large neotheropods from the Upper Triassic of North America and the early evolution of large theropod body sizes "Ancestral state reconstruction for body size suggests that the ancestral theropod condition was small (~240 mm femur length), but the ancestral neotheropod was larger (~300–340 mm femur length), with coelophysoids experiencing secondary body size reduction, although this is highly dependent on the phylogenetic position of a few key taxa. Theropods evolved large body sizes before the Triassic–Jurassic extinction, as hypothesized in most other ancestral state reconstructions of theropod body sizes, but remained rare relative to smaller theropods until the Jurassic"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      both morphological data and histological examination suggest that known large‐bodied Triassic theropods are represented by immature individuals still growing rapidly at the time of death, indicating that the maximum body size of Triassic theropods was much larger than that a strict reading of the body fossil record would suggest.... https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.24130

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The oldest tracks are quadrupedal, a morphology uncommon among the earliest dinosauromorph body fossils, but bipedality and moderately large body size had arisen by the Early Anisian (ca 246 Ma).... Footprints pull origin and diversification of dinosaur stem lineage deep into Early Triassic

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know why you posted these three replies, but people are sort of fricking moronic for thinking the ancestral dinosaur was bipedal when dinosaur ancestors weren't. The proterosuchids and aphanosaurs were both quadrupeds. And the earliest Ornithischians - the Silesaurids were also. Bipedality evolved separately in Ornithischians and Saurischians, then Sauropods and nearly all Ornithischians went back to being quadrupeds.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Arctic ice and the ecological rise of the dinosaurs "In contrast, insulated dinosaurs were already well adapted to cold temperatures.."

    Fossil biomolecules reveal an avian metabolism in theancestral dinosaur...

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I suppose it's some related to dinosaurs via their ancestors... a new non-archosaurian archosauromorphs that "shows that the parasagittal posture evolved before the end-Permian Mass Extinction". ... article is no springer

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Not a dinosaur but
    The first "bone-cruncher" in the fossil record may have been Rhizodus, a lobe-finned fish from the Carboniferous that had ridiculously huge teeth and was about the length of an average great whitey out in the ocean today
    it also had the morphology to support self-beaching similar to modern orcas so sol if you thought desperately swimming to the shoreline would immediately save you

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The last-ditch effort to stop those landaboo tiktaalik Black folk
      They failed

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Scary stuff

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >if you thought desperately swimming to the shoreline would immediately save you
      >...
      Will it save you?? Anon??????? Anoooon!!!!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Rhizodus got him, he thought he was safe but

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          NOOOOOOO-

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm sharing with you all... the fact that dinos are COOL AS HECK!

  33. 1 year ago
    dolar

    dinosaurs had very small brains
    but very big mouths

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Birds are dinosaurs.
    Therefore dinosaurs are birds.
    Therefore all dinosaurs had feathers and a toothless beak.
    Therefore Tyrannosaurus could fly, chasing herds of Diplodocus across the skies.
    We have found Tyrannosaurs that identified as non-binary.
    Towards the late cretaceous, an increasing percentage of dinosaurs expressed non-binary gender identity.
    The cretaceous/eocene boundary is defined by 41% of dinosaur species disappearing. Only modern birds remained.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Who the frick even is Meraxes? Syrax, Caraxes, Vhaegar, Balerion, Drogon, Rhaegal, Viseryon, those are the GoT dragons.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        from Aegon's conquest

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >T. showgay

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >@4431574
    >@4431587
    >@4431653
    >@4431664
    >@4431670
    thanks for derailing the thread and blabbing about nothing, fricking dilate

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I read somewhere that the average size of all dinosaur species known is about that of a cow, while the average of all mammal species known comes down to a shrew.

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Kiwi bird is related to the now extinct Elephant Bird from Madagascar, and not to the extinct Moa bird that lived in the same island as it.

    That happens because bords keep evoling the same body type lol

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Having a true bird appear in the fossil record before alleged feathered dinosaurs, no mechanism to change scales into feathers, no mechanism to change a reptilian respiratory system into an avian respiratory system, and no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn’t turn into birds. The evidence is consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds.

    Genesis is clear that God didn’t make birds from pre-existing dinosaurs. In fact, dinosaurs (land animals made on day six) came after winged creatures made on day five, according to the Bible. Both biblically and scientifically, chicken-eaters around the world can rest easy—they aren’t eating mutant dinosaurs.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, creationists often make the mistake of thinking the fossil record is complete and in proper order. They're not super smart.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you lie

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, creationists often make the mistake of thinking the fossil record is complete and in proper order. They're not super smart.

      Why do you lie

      Catholic here, only israelites smear the name of Christianity like this pretending we believe the Earth is flat and dinosaurs are fake.
      Birds are obviously a strain of avian dinosaur.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You're not the brightest, are you?

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Easily the best reconstruction of the animal right here.

  42. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Mad how big these guys got. Makes you wonder if K-Pg had never happened, saurolophines could have gotten even bigger and challenged even the giant sauropods.

    >Shantungosaurus is so far the largest hadrosauroid taxon in the world, reaching between 15 metres (49 ft) to 16.6 metres (54 ft) in length and 13 metric tons (14 short tons) to 16 metric tons (18 short tons) in body mass.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Shantungosaurus
      Shatbungholesaurus beat Anatotitan in biggest duckbill? Gay.

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    what do we think of this weird little fricker

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I suspect his "integument" was another case of fossilized plant tissue.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Ayo are those some triops?
      I love those lil guys

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The whole background to this thing is such a giant shitshow.

  44. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Idiots arguing about China

    leave please. Not everything is a communist conspiracy

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      moron

  45. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Now this isn't a scientific proven thing, but I think it's an interesting theory. In real life there are quite a few notable large omnivores like boars or some bears. Quit a few omnivore eat mostly plants but will seek out when the opportunity presents itself. So the theory goes that at least some ceratopsians with there powerful beaks might be omnivore in a similar manner to wild boars

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Check the coprolites of these homies, lad.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What about turtles, they have similar beaks and are roving murdering omnivores

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What about turtles, they have similar beaks and are roving murdering omnivores

      Yeah I have a response to this. The belief that there's no such thing as a herbivore was started by teenape edgehomosexuals. It's false and needs to die.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cry more, vegan.

  46. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Some ankylosaurids like euoplocephalus armored eyelids. What and we have found evidence that they used there tails to fight each other for probably for territory or mates. However a study also found that there tails could generate enough force to brake the leg bones of large theropods.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The weak should fear the strong

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >tfw no ankylosaurussy

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I hate this picture. The blood spray and tail position indicate the ankylosaur was swinging to the right, yet the crocodilian head is facing left, indicating it was hit on thie right side.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I notice that A LOT in artwork of hits. It used to bug me when I would see it in comic books too.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thank you for saying it anon it soothes my autism

  47. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    what are the chances that each discovery coming out of china are just straight up fake

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Extremely low, considering that these fakes would be so convincing that they are molecularly indistinguishable from the real thing, and the resources required to do this a far beyond the capabilities of chink farmers. It would certainly cost more money than the fossils is sold for.
      >But muh Archaeoraptor
      was immediately identified as a forgery by the first peer review AND was created by combing several real fossil birds from China.

      crows are pretty smart tbh

      thats what i figured, that stuff like modern crocodiles and lions and wolf packs are superior to 'muh t rex' who just won by sheer size

      >stuff like modern crocodiles and lions and wolf packs are superior to 'muh t rex' who just won by sheer size
      What a moronic thing to say.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty high. An alarming amount of research (scientific research less than other fields, but it is still bad in the hard sciences) is fake to some extent, and a lot of that is just flat-out fraud. Crazy fringe-theory people are at least somewhat correct when they rant about mainstream science being horribly corrupt and built on social status more than evidence (they then inevitably start pushing even worse bullshit). Anything coming out of China also significantly more corrupt than people in the West (at least outside the social 'sciences') are used to. Cheating and fraud have just become so ingrained in their culture that it's impossible to trust anything.
      Hopefully palaeontology is somewhat protected by being based on verifiable physical specimens, but if there is some method of faking them (and I strongly suspect there is) the Chinese will be using it. The recent surge in extremely high-quality finds looks very suspicious.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You have no evidence. Only neurotic paranoia that the chinamen are out to get you. You back down on this point every single thread because you can't defend it. So lets just skip to the part where you do that, freak

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          He's right, though. Even the china-wanking exhibit at the Field Museum a few years back had a huge display talking about the history of academic dishonesty in china and how people were more respected for cheating successfully than for being smart.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Paleontologists no longer really care about fossils. They're more interested in testing pet bullshit theories with questionable genetic experiments now. That's part of the reason it's fallen off the wagon. Paleontologists don't just look at the fricking rocks anymore.

        You have no evidence. Only neurotic paranoia that the chinamen are out to get you. You back down on this point every single thread because you can't defend it. So lets just skip to the part where you do that, freak

        Not him, but actually, we prove you liars every thread, then you back down just like Hitler described your kind and come back the next day and pretend your shit didn't get pushed in.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          He's right, though. Even the china-wanking exhibit at the Field Museum a few years back had a huge display talking about the history of academic dishonesty in china and how people were more respected for cheating successfully than for being smart.

          Ah so you still don't have any actual evidence. Please learn your place when speaking to your betters. You lose again.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Shit like this is exactly why the entire world has turned against your kind and your lies. I just posted a direct admission from your precious Xu Xing that china is full of fake fossils and your response is to ignore and pretend it never happened.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              So you still have no actual evidence that the fossils you contend are fake. No wonder you're losing so badly. You're as bad at samegayging as you are at science.

              If I was a mod I'd permanently ban you. All you do is come on the internet and tell lies and try to push the status quo down everyone's throats and whenever you're proven wrong you just say "didn't happen". You're the kind of shitposter the 90s internet was full of.

              I'll take your impotent off topic seething as a concession of your loss to me. Please leave the thinking to your betters from now on :^)

              >If I was a mod I'd permanently ban you
              But you're not, because histrionic freaks like you will never have any institutional power. In fact, you're ban evading rn because even the most permissive and open ended mainstream forum on the internet shuns you. What a miserable existence you must live.

              Yutyrannus is real. Seethe cope mald whatever.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >histrionic freaks
                >said the literal transexual
                Kek.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/WSh6vRW.jpg

                >You're as bad at samegayging as you are at science.
                >said the darwinian natural selection denier
                ROFLMAO ZEDONG

                No argument. I accept your concession. Please know your place when speaking to your betters

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >i-it wasn't real communism
                Like a clockwork!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe if you were educated you’d be able to make an argument :^)

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                More like reeducated, am i no rait?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Reading Marx is no more an education than reading Harry Potter

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You're as bad at samegayging as you are at science.
                >said the darwinian natural selection denier
                ROFLMAO ZEDONG

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, tell us the one about how Kulindadromeus is fake because of its proximity to China, even though it wasn't found in China, and wasn't worked on by Chinese researchers. That one always cracks me up, delusional freak.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            If I was a mod I'd permanently ban you. All you do is come on the internet and tell lies and try to push the status quo down everyone's throats and whenever you're proven wrong you just say "didn't happen". You're the kind of shitposter the 90s internet was full of.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              meds

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >plastic
          >charcoal
          >construction material
          There's no way that's fooling anyone once they get their actual hands on it, the only way that shit is getting sold is if they don't allow any kind of actual inspection beforehand. Even an amateur would be able to tell something is up with fricking PLASTIC.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Of course, western baizuo soientists can't be fooled. You homosexuals treat science like religion. I already know I'm wasting my breath. Just needed to tell you you're wrong. But we both know your faith in your false god is so strong no amount of evidence can steer you away from the disastrous path you're on.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              So you have no evidence. Got it. Thank you for backing down and saving us the trouble of humiliating you again.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Are you listening to yourself, you stupid Black person? Do you really think that this shit right here could ever fool anyone? You really think I could just buy one of these, dunk it in fricking concrete and then sprinkle it with charcoal dust of all things, and that it would be indistinguishable from an actual fossil? Nobody would ever question why it has tiny gravel bits and looks like fricking sidewalk? Nobody would ever cut it open and wonder why it's soft, red and says KONG on the side? Black person, you're moronic. The only people getting fooled by this shit are the same kinds of people that actually buy Jackson Pollock paintings, pretentious homosexuals who don't actually care what they're displaying and just want to put on appearances of wealth and culture.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Shit like this is exactly why the entire world has turned against your kind and your lies. I just posted a direct admission from your precious Xu Xing that china is full of fake fossils and your response is to ignore and pretend it never happened.

          >Xu Xing is forced to admit
          >Implying an interview is forcing him
          You keep trying to make it seem like Xu Xing is faking a bunch of those fossils, when he’s consistently the one calling out fake fossils. He’s even the one who exposed archaeoraptor as a fake. Get better material

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Very unlikely. There's nothing fake about Chinese fossils. The problem is the attempt to use cladistics and phylogeny over direct fossil evidence.

  48. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    how smart were the best hunting dinosaurs relative to modern top tier hunters, like wolves/panthers/maybe bears/orcas?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Dinosaurs in general were less intelligent than modern birds. The smartest dinosaur would have intelligence on par with a modern bird such as a crow.

      Modern predators are almost universally more intelligent than the dinosaurs were.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        crows are pretty smart tbh

        thats what i figured, that stuff like modern crocodiles and lions and wolf packs are superior to 'muh t rex' who just won by sheer size

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Crows are smarter than every modern predator except people

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >han troglodytes
          >orcas
          >blue whales
          >dolphins
          >most other cetaceans tbh
          >pan troglodytes
          >spotted hyenas
          All predators, all solid contenders for being smarter than a crow

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        how do we know?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >source: my anus

  49. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He's the best. That's the fact.

  50. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Who’s this nugay who keeps making these shit tier dino threads?
    >which dinosaur would cause the most destruction if it were brought back
    >is this the correct head shape for giga
    >here’s a bunch of cool dino facts that are not particularly cool and literally any tard who has even slightly more than a surface level understanding has already known for years

  51. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Heat stroke incarnated.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This. I always say although I never hear it talked about is that raptors did not have feathers on their heads.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            lmfao as hideous as this is yeah this is pretty close
            one thing that nu-paleoartists never get right is the expression on their faces
            crocodiles, birds of prey, they all look mean and angery as frick, they just look pissed off
            too often i see dinos with stupid looking or vacant expressions or they have a "happy" looking face when every bird or lizard I've ever seen looks like it wants you dead

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >every bird or lizard I've ever seen looks like it wants you dead
              You mustn’t see many

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >awwwwww he's smiling 🙂

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >all reptiles look angry

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                dumbass

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I would rate this more as "very disappointed father" than "angry".

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              That's probably not the bird you want to use to illustrate your point

  52. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  53. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I don't see what people's political views have to do with what I said, but alright.

  54. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A cool dinosaur fact is that ideally all shitty dinosaur threads should be hidden.

  55. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Based on the proportion of fossil finds, sauropods were the most prolific of dinosaur fauna from the Jurassic and early Cretaceous; not the equivalent of large, rare animals like elephants, rhinos, or hippos, but rather, the sauropods were the densely herding animals like wildebeest, buffalo, or zebras that dominated the ecosystem. No ornithischian was ever as populous as the sauropodomorphs until the mid-late Cretaceous when hadrosaur and ceratopsian biomass became the dominant presence. It is the long-necked Diplodocus or Camarasaurus that herded in the hundreds, thousands, or millions across the Jurassic North American prairie like the bison, not the Dryosaur or Camptosaur.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Explains why theropods got so massive and macroraptorial so quickly in the Jurassic - if the given stock of prey species was dominated by massive sauropodomorphs (which evolved to huge sizes as a defence mechanism against theropods), and the ratio of ornithopods was lower, while other ornithischians were evolving armoured defences which require greater specialisation to get through, the clearest niche to fill would be to get bigger and bigger along with the prey. The colossal carnosaurs of the Early to Mid Cretaceous - the carcharodontosaurs - were the apogee of this development, evolved to hunt the giant titanosaur species that roamed across the Southern Hemisphere during the break-up of Gondwana. Only when ornithischians eclipsed sauropods in the mid-late Cretaceous did the specialisation of the giant carnosaurs become their gradual undoing, as they were themselves outcompeted by smaller, more robust abelisaurids and tyrannosaurids, which were better adapted for hunting new ornithischian stock. And then, only when ornithischians became truly massive themselves in the Late Cretaceous (giant hadrosaurs and chasmosaurine ceratopsians), did tyrannosaurids catch up in the form of giants like Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There is obviously a large taphonomic bias favoring sauropods, but I'm sure you know that.
      >sauropods were the most prolific of dinosaur fauna from the Jurassic and early Cretaceous
      This is true for the late Jurassic, when even accounting for the bias, sauropods are the overwhelming majoority of animal biomass in the relevant fossil ecosystems. This is much less true for the early Cretaceous, where sauropods are still present and common but have lost their prestigious majority.

      https://i.imgur.com/GxLDaP3.jpg

      Explains why theropods got so massive and macroraptorial so quickly in the Jurassic - if the given stock of prey species was dominated by massive sauropodomorphs (which evolved to huge sizes as a defence mechanism against theropods), and the ratio of ornithopods was lower, while other ornithischians were evolving armoured defences which require greater specialisation to get through, the clearest niche to fill would be to get bigger and bigger along with the prey. The colossal carnosaurs of the Early to Mid Cretaceous - the carcharodontosaurs - were the apogee of this development, evolved to hunt the giant titanosaur species that roamed across the Southern Hemisphere during the break-up of Gondwana. Only when ornithischians eclipsed sauropods in the mid-late Cretaceous did the specialisation of the giant carnosaurs become their gradual undoing, as they were themselves outcompeted by smaller, more robust abelisaurids and tyrannosaurids, which were better adapted for hunting new ornithischian stock. And then, only when ornithischians became truly massive themselves in the Late Cretaceous (giant hadrosaurs and chasmosaurine ceratopsians), did tyrannosaurids catch up in the form of giants like Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus.

      I think you're definitely onto something with the carnosaur-sauropod connection. However I think you might be off on tyrannosaur competition causing their extinction. There's so little resolution to the mid cretaceous that its almost not worth discussing until there's more evidence, but the last known allosaur in North America is still 20 million years out from the earliest members of Tyrannosauridae. There's a really good chance they went into decline along with sauropods as their niche slowly vanished. They wouldn't be the only predators formerly thought to have been outcompeted during this timeframe, either. Both Pliosaurs and Icthyosaurs now seem to have gone extinct of their own accord millions of years before the first substantial Mosasaurs arrive

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >tyrannosaur competition causing their extinction

        I misspoke, I wasn't necessarily trying to say that tyrannosaurs outcompeted carnosaurs directly, but rather than whatever bio-ecological shift that saw a change in the ratio of prey species in the Northern Hemisphere from more sauropods to more ornithischians was also what saw the decline of absolutely massive carnosaurs like the carcharodontosaurs, and opened up new niches for smaller robust theropods like abelisaurs and tyrannosaurs. Obviously it's never going to be as cut and dry as that, but we can theorise that the gradual decline of the carcharodontosaurs and their disappearance from the fossil record by the Cenomanian (when they truly reached their greatest sizes with Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus and Carcharodontosaurus) could be connected to the shift in sauropod populations, and that shift also eventuated the success and diversity of abelisaurids and tyrannosaurids in the last 25 million years of the Cretaceous, both in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. We can perhaps theorise some large scale biogeographical shift that meant that carcharodontosaurs, which were specialised to be giant apex predators hunting the juveniles of the huge titanosaurs (or potentially forming packs and hunting adults), could no longer cope. Usually this kind of specialisation is a double edged sword - you're king of the castle while things are stable, at the highest trophic level, but when there are ecological shifts, migrations or other environmental factors, your specialisation can be a handicap. The ancestral lineages of abelisaurs and tyrannosaurs were most likely generalists, and when the Mid Cretaceous transitioned to the Late Cretaceous, it seems that they were the ones to benefit.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/xql8ezs.png

        >tyrannosaur competition causing their extinction

        I misspoke, I wasn't necessarily trying to say that tyrannosaurs outcompeted carnosaurs directly, but rather than whatever bio-ecological shift that saw a change in the ratio of prey species in the Northern Hemisphere from more sauropods to more ornithischians was also what saw the decline of absolutely massive carnosaurs like the carcharodontosaurs, and opened up new niches for smaller robust theropods like abelisaurs and tyrannosaurs. Obviously it's never going to be as cut and dry as that, but we can theorise that the gradual decline of the carcharodontosaurs and their disappearance from the fossil record by the Cenomanian (when they truly reached their greatest sizes with Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus and Carcharodontosaurus) could be connected to the shift in sauropod populations, and that shift also eventuated the success and diversity of abelisaurids and tyrannosaurids in the last 25 million years of the Cretaceous, both in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. We can perhaps theorise some large scale biogeographical shift that meant that carcharodontosaurs, which were specialised to be giant apex predators hunting the juveniles of the huge titanosaurs (or potentially forming packs and hunting adults), could no longer cope. Usually this kind of specialisation is a double edged sword - you're king of the castle while things are stable, at the highest trophic level, but when there are ecological shifts, migrations or other environmental factors, your specialisation can be a handicap. The ancestral lineages of abelisaurs and tyrannosaurs were most likely generalists, and when the Mid Cretaceous transitioned to the Late Cretaceous, it seems that they were the ones to benefit.

        Again, like you said, the Cenomanian seems to exhibit shifts in the fossil record when it comes to the dominance of different large theropod lineages. The spinosaurids also thin out of the fossil record at this time, and they were clearly very specialised compared to other tetanurans.
        The megaraptorans are a bit of a wild card, if they were indeed allosauroids, then they could be an argument for smaller, lightweight carnosaurs with long grasping forelimbs surviving where massive carcharodontosaurs could not.
        Maybe this biogeographical transition and faunal turnover, if it did happen, could be linked to the Bonarelli anoxia event, which was related to the development of large igneous provinces across the equator due to marine transgression and the continued break up of Gondwanaland. Sea levels rose, choking littoral and delta ecosystems which supported spinosaurids, but also potentially shrinking the floodplains that the giant titanosaurs would have relied upon as nesting grounds. The carbon cycle disturbance also interrupted the marine oxygen cycle, leading to 500,000 years of decline in marine biodiversity, as reflected in the fossil record with reductions in plankton and foraminifer biodiversity. The increase in average water depth would have seawater to become less eutrophic in shallow, epicontinental seas, and this brought about the extinction of the ichthyosaurs and pliosaurs, just like you said. Then, over the following strata, mosasaurs grow to gigantic sizes and dominant the interior seaways of North America and Europe, and the epicontinental seas around Zealandia. So there was definitely a faunal turnover in the ocean, which may have had analogues on land. Something was going on.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          There is obviously a large taphonomic bias favoring sauropods, but I'm sure you know that.
          >sauropods were the most prolific of dinosaur fauna from the Jurassic and early Cretaceous
          This is true for the late Jurassic, when even accounting for the bias, sauropods are the overwhelming majoority of animal biomass in the relevant fossil ecosystems. This is much less true for the early Cretaceous, where sauropods are still present and common but have lost their prestigious majority.

          [...]
          I think you're definitely onto something with the carnosaur-sauropod connection. However I think you might be off on tyrannosaur competition causing their extinction. There's so little resolution to the mid cretaceous that its almost not worth discussing until there's more evidence, but the last known allosaur in North America is still 20 million years out from the earliest members of Tyrannosauridae. There's a really good chance they went into decline along with sauropods as their niche slowly vanished. They wouldn't be the only predators formerly thought to have been outcompeted during this timeframe, either. Both Pliosaurs and Icthyosaurs now seem to have gone extinct of their own accord millions of years before the first substantial Mosasaurs arrive

          So my argument is not that one group outcompeted the other, but rather that some ecological, biogeographical or general environmental shift meant that carcharodontosaurs couldn't keep up, and other lineages of theropods eventually, after many millions of years, grew to fill the new apex predators niches, this time hunting ceratopsians and hadrosaurs.
          I think the last giant carnosaur in North America we can see in the fossil record was Acrocanthosaurus, which existed in a transitional marginal floodplain ecosystem around the rim of the growing Western Interior Seaway, and was extinct by the Cenomanian. Obviously fossilisation means we generally have a bias towards floodplain ecosystems in the Early Cretaceous (sedimentation), but clearly something was happening in the Northern Hemisphere in the time that set the scene for the larger changes by the end of the Cretaceous.
          However, you're right that there are big terrestrial gaps in the Mid Cretaceous fossil record that mean that this is all purely hypothetical. A giant late-surviving carnosaur from the last 25 million years of the Cretaceous could be discovered that would throw up more questions.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Saochilong, the last carnosaur, died out around 90 million years ago not much later than Mapusaurus. Even if we ignore even earlier tyrannosaurs surpassing it in size, like Sinotyrannus, Yutyrannus, mainline pantyrannosaurs of similar size like Alioramus, Timurlengia and that other chinese one I can't pronounce diversified not much later after, if not around the same time as Saochilong.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Alioramus
          Derp, meant Alectrosaurus.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Saochilong
          What kind of a fricking genus name is this? God I hate what the chinks have done to dinosaur science.
          No, I'm not paleo schizo either before someone accuses.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The woke era has been cancer for everything, including science. Using Latin and Greek roots only in order to have a universal language in which scientific names can be encoded is now "racist" and "embodies the spirit of colonialism". Also chinks think they're going to be relevant this century and have paid a lot of shills in the west to keep repeating it. So every movie studio, every academy, every business community and the entire scientific discipline is now bowing to every chink demand.

            >they named a dinosaur schlong

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Using Latin and Greek roots only in order to have a universal language in which scientific names can be encoded is now "racist" and "embodies the spirit of colonialism"
              Exactly. Every fricking dino coming out of China gets a name like that. Yi ti, Guanlong, Dilong, Saochilong, etc. It's like they really want to everyone to know who found it and render it impossible to even say the animal's name without being reminded of it.
              >that's right round-eye, who found it? WE did!
              Before anyone goes there I'm not a fan of naming dinosaurs after Marvel villains and Game of Thrones dragons either. Sure, Meraxes sounds cool but what does it mean exactly? We all remember growing up reading dinosaur books with the English translation of the names and learning Greek and Latin that way. How will the children's books of the future even spin this?
              >Tyrannosaurus = Tyrant Lizard
              >Allosaurus = Other Lizard
              >Meraxes = uh...Meraxes?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >children's books
                children learning actual knowledge is antisemitic, they should read about creepy sex-related things only
                dinosaurs are toxic masculinity

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The nu-gen definition of dinosaurs is now associated with creepy sex-related things taught in preschools.

                Notice that a large portion of Trey The Explainer's demographic is below 11 years old. What's toxic masculinity in biology today are pits, frogs and skin-wrapped crocs.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Every other twitter post by troony the explainer is troon bullshit. This is literally all feathergays.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I just don't get why they do it. It's just to cause discourse and infighting and well-poisoning. I've always always always known since I was reading dinosaur storybooks back before Jurassic Park even existed that some dinosaurs had feathers and some didn't. Why every pedophile using photoshop draws fuzzy t-rexes and bushy brontosaurs is beyond me.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because they're homosexuals and glowBlack folk have convinced midwits that homosexualry is cool now.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                [...]

                Your containment board is up there, Black person.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I come to Wauf to get angry at memes and shitposts
                >NOOO YOU CAN'T USE MEMES LIKE THAT STOP IT MOOODS

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why does he have such a creepy pfp? It looks like someone painted a human bpdy over the dinosaur

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think it's suppose to be Dipper Pines

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I love that you're too stupid to understand Meraxes is a combination of latin words.

                literal fricking moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Meraxes is a combination of latin words
                No it's fricking not. Mara (not mera) is "sea" and "xes" is fricking nothing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                holy shit
                it's fricking moronic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Enlighten us, you dumb woman.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >teach me, idiot
                let's see how that works out for you

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Whatever, you nasty fat old grandma, you'll die miserable and alone. Post about dinosaurs instead of pretending to be some pseud about latin suffixes.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >latin suffixes.
                figured it out on your own, huh?

                pretty funny that you used that as an example of non-latin names. You didn't even recognize obvious latin.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                holy shit
                it's fricking moronic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Oh? And what words would those be?
                Funny how whoever named it just happened to hit on the same combination of words as an ASOIAF character isn't it? I mean, what are the heckin odds?! I'm sure that in no way influenced the naming of the animal, though.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Funny how whoever named it just happened to hit on the same combination of words as an ASOIAF character isn't it?
                good lord
                don't you have some crayons to eat?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Stop coping, Meraxes was named for the heckin yummy Game of Thrones drago-rino and any resemblance to an actual Latin term is a lucky coincidence.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >any resemblance to an actual Latin term is a lucky coincidence.
                sure, There's no way a fantasy author would ever use latinate terms in their fictional languages.

                You make the board dumber every time you post.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It doesn't matter what the author based the name on in his writings, because that has nothing to do with why the name of the dinosaur was picked.
                I can't wait for future carnosaurs to be named Balerion and Vhaegar to complete the set. Purely coincidentally, of course.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I want to find some dinosaurs and name them Frodo and Shadowfax just to watch you cry more.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Next lizard I find will be named Gex just to watch you seethe

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >i will ruin everything just to watch civilization seethe
                The left in a nutshell.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Funny how that anon went from
                >no nobody ever named new fossils after pop culture figures it's in your head schizo take your meds you don't know Latin
                to
                >yeah we do name new fossils after pop culture figures and I'm glad we do because I REALLY HOPE IT PISSES YOU OFF
                It never takes long for their mask to slip off does it?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Which ones, pretentious dipshit? Doesn't sound Latin in the slightest. If it's any language of the two, it's Greek, but it doesn't sound like a real word there either.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you know a lot of greek and latin, do you?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, frickface, I do.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Greek here, closest word would be meracles and it's a modern one (at the latest late byzantine).

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Using Latin and Greek roots only in order to have a universal language in which scientific names can be encoded is now "racist" and "embodies the spirit of colonialism"
              Exactly. Every fricking dino coming out of China gets a name like that. Yi ti, Guanlong, Dilong, Saochilong, etc. It's like they really want to everyone to know who found it and render it impossible to even say the animal's name without being reminded of it.
              >that's right round-eye, who found it? WE did!
              Before anyone goes there I'm not a fan of naming dinosaurs after Marvel villains and Game of Thrones dragons either. Sure, Meraxes sounds cool but what does it mean exactly? We all remember growing up reading dinosaur books with the English translation of the names and learning Greek and Latin that way. How will the children's books of the future even spin this?
              >Tyrannosaurus = Tyrant Lizard
              >Allosaurus = Other Lizard
              >Meraxes = uh...Meraxes?

              Somehow I doubt it’ll ever get changed either, since Plumatyrannus doesn’t sound as good as Yutyrannus

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Honestly, it's probably fake as is anyway. Don't worry, when I wreck all these NPCs and send them and their masters back to hell where they belong, I'm instituting widespread changes to all parts of surviving human society.

  56. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    they had featherinos. pic-related is a scientifically-accurate dinosaur

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The deinonyke from Ark is the best reconstruction of a raptor I've seen.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Huh... they attached the wing feathers to the right finger!

  57. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What's this dude's point?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Dinosaurs are not currently frickable enough as depicted in contemporary paleoart

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        He's trying to win his disability case.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        dinosaurs are nowhere as skeletal as some artists think they are.

  58. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    they all had feathers, every single one of them

  59. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Some paleontologists have theorized that large sauropods, such as Diplodicus longus, may have been able to whip their tails fast enough to break the sound barrier, much like a bull whip.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Sauropods are really underrated in the grand scheme of things.
      A huge sauropod's whiptail was easily the strongest weapon in all of natural history. How long is a tail on one of these homies? 30 feet? Coming from a 100-ton animal you'd be turned into fricking mist. It could probably cut an elephant's head off.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >100 ton
        this is another misconception about dinosaurs, sauropods especially, their weights are often vastly overestimated based on raw crocodylomorph metrics without accounting for variegated bone density, appropriate musculature and organ mass (wildly varying estimates of what is the appropriate "fleshiness" for a given species) and the ever-ignored issue of air-sacs
        the very largest titanosaurs probably tipped the scales at 30 or 40 tons and even a substantial diplodocid is mostly 80-90 feet of fluff attached to a torso worth maybe 2 elephants

  60. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There is a larger stretch of time between the Stegosaurus stenops and the Tyrannosaurus rex than the Tyrannosaurus rex and modern man.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The dinosaur extinction had to be an inside job because they weren't doing anything with their evolution.

  61. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The topic of whether or not Tyrannosaurus rex had feathers has been a subject of considerable debate in paleontology. There is no direct evidence of feathers in this species and no feather impressions in any fossils to date.

    However, other species in the Tyrannosauroidea family, such as Yutyrannus huali (pictured), have direct evidence of feathers.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I hate this stupid fricking meme, feathered tyrannosaurs are barely related to the non-feathered tyrannosaurinae, all of whom pictured in their bracket have skin impressions known.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This just confirms that what you're replying to is accurate, if a bit generalistic

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          it's accurate and massively generalised, the tyrannosaur in the picture has three fingers for fricks sake - not very characteristic of a tyrannosaur

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why do paleotards always act like a 30 year old monster movie is the only exposure the general public has had to dinosaurs
        In the end they end up talking about Jurassic Park more than anyone else
        "Did you know that in Jurassic Pa-" Sorry homosexual nobody asked, shut up and talk about dinosaurs

        >t.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >feathered tyrannosaurs are barely related to the non-feathered tyrannosaurinae
        lmao brainlet

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >There is no direct evidence of feathers in this species and no feather impressions in any fossils to date.
      We have direct evidence that tyrannosaurids had no feather from fricking SKIN imprints from at least Tyrannosaurus AND Albertosaurus.

      Even Pozzerific American had to admit it in order to not lose it's last remaining fragments of credibility.
      https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/long-live-the-fuzzy-t-rex/

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >skin wrinkles are evidence of feathers
        lmao now this is peak feathergay cope

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, I know that you are schizoid but you gotta work on your reading comprehension. My genitals are too intact and too big to be an Asian troony.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The fact that we have skin imprints does not rule out that T. rex could have had miniscule feathers on certain parts of its body. Skin impressions are just that - impressions of a certain part of the animal's skin.

        I'm agnostic on whether or not T.rex had feathers. All I said was that it remains unknown if it had ANY feathers or not.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Let's go by chinkcomsensus and say that basal tyrannosaurs were feathered, what makes you think that large eutyrannosaurs in temperate climates half hundred million years later would remain fuzzy?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            sorry

            captcha ate my image

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Let's go by chinkcomsensus and say that basal tyrannosaurs were feathered, what makes you think that large eutyrannosaurs in temperate climates half hundred million years later would remain fuzzy?

              well baby elephants have fuzz, so that could mean baby rex had down

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because Dinosaurs are mammals. Also elephants have scales. I'm moronic and trans, btw.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Bait.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I like elephants

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >you now realize mammoths were smaller than modern african elephants

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Just woolly mammoths. Columbian Mammoths were LARGER.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                when are we going to reintroduce elephants in cold regions so they become mammoths again?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Canada going full communist probably prevents Americans from moving there.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Scales, feathers and hair are all forms of integument. Skin is not. All amniotes have Skin. Scales, feathers and hair are all additional structures that most amniotes possess in one form or another. However they're all derived from the same process. Feathers and hair are effectively highly derived forms of scales. That's important because the Trey the Explainer example of elephants or whales having Hair on skin is completely different to the notion that an animal with scales also possesses feathers. There are restraints on this imposed by the process which forms scales and feathers in the first place. Such development happens in stages, starting with the back, head, neck and sides and then the lower legs and finally the feet. So if you have scales present in one area of an animal that almost guarantees it won't have any other form of integument in that area. If it does then that's something entirely novel in the either living or extinct amniotes. There are no living animals that have reptilian scales and mammalian hair or avian feathers. Additionally dinosaurs that have feathers do not preserve any scales and vice versa. So it's very much an either or situation. Scales on birds feet are secondarily evolved. And even if they weren't, it's a good example of the process I mentioned previously. You could theoretically have them coexist, but only in certain patterns. I.e the feet have scales and the rest of the body has feathers. There is direct evidence of feathered ornithomimids having large patches of bare skin in the same manner as ostriches. This is notable for the fact they don't preserve scales. It's bizarre to me how often twitter and reddit paleogays will screech about dinosaurs being birdlike but then ignore birds and start creating their own strange Lizard-bird chimeras.
              TLDR - Scales, feathers and hair are mutually exclusive. So your elephant idea for a dinosaur that already has scales does not work and is Trey the Explainer is a moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Agree with all of this but just want to point out that mammalian hair is very different than feathers. Mammalian hair is more than just derived scales like how archosaur feathers are. They used to be sensory receptors (AKA what whiskers are) that decided to cover the entire body as insulation somewhere within the therapsid evolution. The point is, this further reinforces the point that elephant-pattern baldness is a poor comparison for tyrannosaur featherlessness.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                The funniest thing about mammalian fur is that it's the only fricking structure in nature featherhomosexuals don't try to claim is a feather. I'm sure at some point we'll be hearing claims that insect wings axchually evolved from feathers.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Technically they are modified scales, it's just that ontogenically they come only from the sensory scales from around the reptile's mouth. Btw at what evolutionary grade do you think whiskers evolve? Pre-sphenacodont? Therapsid? Cynognathan?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Btw at what evolutionary grade do you think whiskers evolve? Pre-sphenacodont? Therapsid? Cynognathan?
                I have no clue, and I think the evidence for this is also very limited. It can emerge at any point between Dimetrodon and Cynodont.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Again, I didn't say "fuzzy" in the sense that the majority of the animal would have feathers.

            I'm just saying it's possible T. rex had small feathers on certain parts of its body, much like how modern elephants have tiny hairs on their bodies.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It's not, and those aren't remotely comparable. Skin and hair is different from skin, scales and feathers. An animal can have skin and hair, skin and feathers or skin and scales. No animal has skin, feathers and scales or hair, except is niche cases where the 'scales' are highly derived feathers or hair. Same with mammalian horns and other structures made from hair.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No animal has skin, feathers and scales or hair,
                ?

                Why does this subject need to be so moronic? Why do all dinos need to be either fully feathered or fully scaly when we KNOW that's not the case with a bunch of them? Are people just still refusing to understand what "feather" means and what integument is? Sure, a bunch of structures are called "feathers" as a generalizing term coming from the theory that they're related... is this what causes the confusion? Paleo reconstructions will always need to speculate because there's only so much we can know, as long as there are different reconstructions showing different possibilities around, what's the issue?

                Might as well fight over "did dinosaurs had beaks or not?" at this point, such stupidity that misses the point entirely.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It's over feathergay.
          You lost.
          Over the years, you went from "don't be mad scallies, T.rex was covered in feather" to "l-let's j-just say it had s-some miniscule f-feathers in some places".

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's worse than that. It's muh invisible magic feathers now. "Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they're not there!!"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          But it provides no evidence that it did. So there's no reason to think that it did until there's evidence to suggest that it did.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Those skin impressions don't rule out feathers especially because they look like taphonomy heavily affected them

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          110% bait

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        This article is unbelievably dreadful. I suppose this is as "scientific" as an american woman can get. Good god, I can hardly read more than a paragraph. Nauseating, null-IQ language. This is the kind of conversation I'd expect to hear from children on public transport, not in a science magazine. Their entire website looks like bad youtube clickbait though, it must be embarassing to work for them as an editor

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yutyrannus is a scam. Why are morons treating it like a real thing?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Are these "Chinese forgers" in the room with us now?

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Jackalope spider

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            Was immediately recognized as a forgery the minute other specialists got a look at it.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              Doesn't change the fact

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                By that logic I could go and make a fake skull out of purple plastecine and post it online somewhere only for it to be immediately called out and now all American fossils can't be trusted.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                the paleontological field of the United States doesn't have a longstanding history of passing off government-sanctioned forgeries as genuine discoveries to the international scientific community so the comparison is somewhat strained

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >in the chinese communist party's central office
                >minister of fake fossils ching chong reports to the central subversion bureau's american brach's overseer ping pong
                >yes, the most honolable ping pong, our newest fake fossil ploof that tylannosaulus lex was a featheled scavengel
                >this will sulely tuln amelican youth into gay tlannies
                >hail xi! long live the gleat communist palty!
                >what if now that dinosauls ale gay and lame, amelican youth instead become fans of ice age fauna, how will we luin them, ching chong?
                >claiming that mammoths and sabeltooth tigels wele also featheled will be too falfetched fol even amelicans to swallow it
                >ol maybe instead they will stalt loving anomalocalis instead of that dinosauls ale luined, those too will be immune against featheling
                >it maybe that by luining dinosauls you've only made the ploblem wolse and made using dinosauls to subvelt amelicans haldel fol us
                >how do you answel to these accusations, ministel chong?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/XbLk8wh.png

      I hate this stupid fricking meme, feathered tyrannosaurs are barely related to the non-feathered tyrannosaurinae, all of whom pictured in their bracket have skin impressions known.

      Which ones had extensive feathers? I'm sorry, after taking the featherpill the featherless look ugly to me.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Only Dilong and Yutyrannus have direct evidence of feather, and that's only if you trust communist slants that is.

  62. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Despite being called thunder lizards they are neither thunder nor lizards.

  63. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Dilophosaurus wetherilli neither had neck frills nor the ability to spit venom despite its appearance in Jurassic Park. It was also significantly larger.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why do paleotards always act like a 30 year old monster movie is the only exposure the general public has had to dinosaurs
      In the end they end up talking about Jurassic Park more than anyone else
      "Did you know that in Jurassic Pa-" Sorry homosexual nobody asked, shut up and talk about dinosaurs

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Most people still think Jurassic Park's dinosaurs are accurate. Ask any normie

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >one post referencing JP
        >"WHY IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT JURASSIC PARK?!?!"

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are educational books for kids being made right now with frilled Dilophosaurus and other JP dinosaur designs. These designs are still culturaly relevant and dominant. That's why you need reminders in educational contexts, it's just how things are.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          And? These animals went extinct 65 million years ago. The public doesn't need to be educated on this irrelevant information. It's perfectly ok if there are pop culture notions of dinosaurs and academic perceptions of dinosaurs coexisting, without letting them contaminate each other.

  64. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Useless facts thread

  65. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'll start:

    Despite its size, Spinosaurus aegyptiacus was a semiaquatic animal with a body streamlined for swimming and pursuing marine prey. Even though it was bigger than Tyrannosaurus rex, it would be easily overpowered and killed in a confrontation.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Schizophrenia

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think you're deliberately being wrong or are just being misinformed.

      Spinosaurus was most likely a shoreline hunter rather than a semi-aquatic pursuit swimmer. It's actual build and sail would inhibit it from actually swimming all that fast. And no, Spinosaurus isn't bigger than a T-Rex but it's also not just a one sided match up for the T-rex. Spinosaurus still was a robust dinosaur with the second or third most powerful arms of any theropod dinosaur, with it's swiping claws capable of delivering a solid ton of force with each blow.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Spinosaurus isn't bigger than T. rex

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >sail would inhibit it from actually swimming all that fast
        idk, aren't sailfish literally the fastest fish?

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sailfish use their sail as a stabilizer while they're hunting, but their sail is able to bend and flex quite a bit. They even collapse it while not hunting so it's not damaged.
          Not sure Spinosaurus' sail could do the same thing just because the fossils we've gotten of them have the bones affixed to the vertebrae, which implies their sail was pretty static.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/6kKciTM.jpg

      post the aerial version

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *