Post things that, while probably not true, you like to believe just because it's freakin cool. Doesn't have to just be dinosaurs, could be any Wauf - Animals & Natures
Post things that, while probably not true, you like to believe just because it's freakin cool.
Even horses eat meat if given the chance. Any wild animal will eat whatever it can find if it's starving. 100% plausible triceratops ate meat.
Reddit/NPC general?
God created the dinosaurs. Behemoth and Leviathan are two examples. There are no more because the Bible is not a taxonomic encyclopedia. It's a religious script.
You're too stupid to breath. Stop wasting oxygen and die to be with your god.
>You're too stupid to breathe!
>Anyway this fossil is obviously an octopodes' artistic interpretation of itself.
Find a better way to express your need for attention. Maybe take up fossil hunting as a hobby. You'll learn so much and get to take a hike.
Yes. What's your point? Nothing says I'm not allowed to call you out on being a retard.
you're brainless
Your god that can only light shit on fire and show his ass to people? You sure he isn't taking you for a ride to feel important or maybe have a laugh?
You are blaspheming. Leviathan, Ziz and Behemoth are not mere animals but kings of the beasts Lord had created. They can only be bested by Him.
While an unlikely theory definitely one of the most beautiful ones imo.
Modern cephalopods are known for their intelligence, some octopi being considered the smartest invertebrates.
The image shows a bunch of ichtyosaur vertebrae rearranged in a really really odd way, one theory posits that a large cephalopod who was feeding on the icthyosaur (either through predation or scavenging) rearranged the vertebrae in order to mimic the pattern of its own suckers.
These are the people we're supposed to take seriously.
Bowerbirds build obscenly elaborate yet useless structures as a courtship display. It's unlikely but not impossible that giant cephalopod did something like that with corpses.
This is the original artwork, that thumbnail has had its colour saturation massively boosted. This is a reasonable colour range for a large herbivore. My only contention is that it seems like a colour scheme more likely for a herbivore living in an arid environment, with less vegetation. Obviously large herbivores can't always use camouflage but they are more likely to reflect the colour of the vegetation in their environment if they were under threat of predation (which we know Triceratops was). Impala and springbok and oryxes wear hues and shades that reflect that of a more arid savannah environment (although obviously the actual colour is less important than the shade because most mammals possess dichromatic vision and thus red-green colour blind, which is the bongo, a forest antelope, is also orange). Reptiles and birds are tetrachromatic, and non-avian dinosaurs most likely would have been as well, meaning colour played an important part in their lives, whether for camouflage or display. I could imagine a small desert ceratopsian like Protoceratops being more likely to be orange or sandy hues than a large forest or prairie ceratopsian like Triceratops. How arid was the Ojo Alamo formation? Maybe Ojoceratops would have more sandy hues but that seems unlikely.
Additionally, there is the point that truly massive modern mammals have no concerns about camouflage. Obviously rhinos, elephants and hippos have no regular natural predators as adults, while it seems like Triceratops did (Tyrannosaurus), but the benefits of camouflage at that size are questionable. Display was clearly part of ceratopsian biology and behaviour though - that frill! - so it seems likely there would have been some splash of colour in sexually mature adults around the head.
>israelitetube subhuman nagger ruins an art piece to make sure the retarded children who watch his channel click on the video by being attracted to more vibrant colours
Wow I have even more reasons to hate this homosexual
>Paleotubers
Most are shit but the one you posted is the most clickbait asshole ever
I believe there were once enormous whale-sized cephalopods in the oceans. They would never fossilise so we could never prove it to be the case, but I just doubt that Colossal and Giant Squids are truly the largest to ever exist.
I mean i could see it, it's actually depressing to think how many animals we probably don't even know ever existed because they didin't fossilize
>once
I believe there still are now. Either giant and colossal squids get much bigger than what people think, or there's something else out there...
Now this is a nice change. A common sense, even handed dinosaur post on Wauf. A rare sight nowadays.
Squid fossils are as common as muck anon. Usually it's the cuttlebone part that's inside their bodies that fossilises as that's the hardest bit, but you can also find the hooked claws from their tentacles- and if it's a whale-size the hooks would be fucking huge and robust enough to survive. Even without body fossils, evidence of their activity (such as bite marks in other fossils) would imply their existence. There's not even been a hint of such things sadly.
Tyrannosaurus being good parents
I am a firm believer of the "Triceratops was basically a dinosaur boar" thing because it would've been sick
There are some ceratopsians that also had fangs like pigs do.
You idiot. That's an ancestral Ornithischian trait before they lost teeth to make way for full beaks. They were most likely used in sparring.
How would you use down and back pointing fangs for "sparring?" Can you name a single animal that actually does this?
Muntjac deer.
Body shape is completely different. They can stand on their back legs in order to actually use their fangs. Try again.
So can early certopsians, like the mentioned Aquilops.
Some of them have serrations on them.
Interesting, what's the species?
nevermind, found it.
Pachy PM tooth.
those serrations would normally be interpreted as meat cutters. But the bulb at the gum line is unlike any theropod tooth I've ever seen. Crazy find.
>the bulb at the gum line is unlike any theropod tooth I've ever seen.
well except for birds. Bird teeth often have that shape, but they don't often have serrations and usually lack defined carinae.
The trannivision colors are getting way out of hand now. What purpose would it serve for a large herbivore to be eye rape orange? The excuse for birds is they can fly away from predators.
I am going to assume you're trolling, but in the case you are a genuine mongoloid, I'll lay it out for you. Most herbivores and carnivores can NOT see the color orange, it's the exact reason why tigers are orange and black.
Then where are all the orange modern ungulates?
Turned into a shade of orange so hard that modern omnivores (humans) can't see them either.
Aren’t impalas a shade of orange?
I guess you could say that but they sure aren't neon colored
You are color blind if you see this as orange
It's ok anon, we know you're retarded.
anon get a color picker
This is only the case for mammals. In fact, most reptiles and birds have four colour cones, while humans only have three and most mammals only have two.
Dinosaurs had sophisticated colour vision. That said, Triceratops was the size of an elephant, so camouflage may not have been very useful once it reached adulthood.
>Most herbivores and carnivores can NOT see the color orange, it's the exact reason why tigers are orange and black.
tigers also can't see the color orange
It doesn't matter how many orange animals you bring up because what they are discussing is that it is NEON orange. If it was a more muted shade of orange no one would be complaining
>what they are discussing is that it is NEON orange.
yes. A color hunters wear because mammals in general can't see it. Dinosaurs could probably see the color as do other non-mammals, which is why lots of birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes happen to be eye-rape orange.
They can’t see orange regardless of whether it’s bright orange or not. There is a reason hunters wear high vis
The trannyvision colors are part of that particular youtuber’s eyecancer “branding”. He’s not pretending it’s realistic.
that's just how every faggy youtube thumbnail is, crank up the saturation, add a retarded outline or glow around the subject and bam you now have hundreds of thousands of views
pretty much
i genuinely hate the channel in the OP
>The excuse for birds is they can fly away from predators.
What predators do cassowarys have?
Dingos, crocodiles, humans, previously shit like thylacoleo, megalania and Komodo dragons
they run to survive land predators compared to flying birds that have flying predators
Safety first
Triceratops' ancestors may have been omnivores.
What's with this recent trend of drawing ceratopsians and hadrosaurs without cheeks?
Universe is balancing out from adding lips to Tyrannosaurus.
Paleotwitter being paleotwitter
Shush, I'd rather not have another 15 poster 400 post thread filled with mongoloids pretending to know anything about paleontology.
Whatever is most incorrect will be the trend as long as contrarians control society.