>The appearance and behavior of dinosaurs is real paleontology
Real paleontologists understand the public is unaware of actual paleontology and mistakes this fred flinstone tier bullshit for science. So we don't complain much when children and morons ask us about dinosaurs, or what dinosaurs looked like, or what dinosaurs did.
But these threads would be deeply offensive to actual scientists if we for even a minute thought we were dealing with normal adults capable of complex thought.
I've answered every question itt (except two I skipped on purpose here to let the anons look it up or not) and I answered them quite politely dozens of times over a period of ten years.
then I got less polite about it, because it's the same tard(s) asking over and over and over and over and over and over again. And then disagreeing with the answer like they're not moronic or something.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Its one tard that still clings to 50's style taxonomy and thinks everything past that is liberal propoganda and modern paleontology is just an SJW circlejerk of baseless assersions and politics. iirc he said proceratosaurs are only tyrannosauroids because its "politically correct".
4 months ago
Anonymous
I know
He spams threads with his moronic takes, and nobody wants to talk to him.
so I stopped in for the new year to bump his bullshit thread and give him his day or two of social interaction. As usual he fricked it up by being a complete gay.
Now the thread is done, and so am I.
I will leave for greener pastures with fewer turds, and he will be stuck talking to himself again for a few months. At least in paleo threads where he's very easy to ID and ignore.
He gets lots of interaction in other Wauf threads, but even there people are starting to recognize him and will eventually learn to ignore him.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>iirc he said proceratosaurs are only tyrannosauroids because its "politically correct".
Yes, this is one of many cases where he copies my conclusions and then invents magical reasons to support them.
When I first found Wauf in 2011 or so I posted some criticisms of Rauhut's reassignment of Proceratosaurus. My reasons were that the character states he used to assign it to Tyrannosaur/oidea/idae were almost all present in Allosaurus. And his matrix include errors omitting the presence of those same characters in Allosaurus. I have repeated this criticism over the years.
He can't be happy with a simple case of one scientist doing some apparently shoddy work, even if that scientist is generally known for his shoddy work. The schizo instead has to invent magical forces trying to tear his world apart using dinosaur skulls as the leverage. Literal schizophrenic delusions.
But as in many cases, he agrees with my conclusions but tries to back them up with literal insanity instead of the facts on which I originally based them. Presumably because he can't understand the facts of the matter and has to make things up. He does this often. He usually agrees with me, but for moronic reasons.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>He usually agrees with me, but for moronic reasons.
This is why I think of him as my paduan, my apprentice. He tries SO HARD to be like me but for his own special reasons.
He doesn't understand that this doesn't look like a flattering copy to me. He's more of a disappointing caricature of me. But ultimately that's his problem, not mine. And at the end of the day Wauf can't generally tell the difference between him and me, so even if I think he's a sad joke, nobody else here gets the joke. So he's fine. He's the puppet Wauf deserves apparently.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The paleoschizo's stances on feathered rex, theropod feathers in general, the trustworthiness of china, the validity of Tyrannosauroidea, the quill knobs on Concavenator, and probably a few other topics I can't remember right now,
are all just direct copies and exaggerations of opinions I have expressed on Wauf over the years.
He's literally just a cheap copy of me without any of the thought or restraint I try to put into my own views. Which is both funny and sad to me. Not that he cares what I think of his efforts, but he probably should since he's just aping my own behavior and I can ignore him easily enough if I get bored with him.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I can ignore him easily enough if I get bored with him.
and lately he has been boring me
I understand him I think. I understand him very well. But understanding him erases all interest I had in him previously. I now see he is not going anywhere with all of this. He's learning vast volumes of information about very shallow topics of paleontology, but he has no context in which to arrange the information and no particular idea what to do with it except trying to impress strangers on a mongolian throat singing club.
none of this is going anywhere. I am not inspiring the next generation of curious scientists, I'm just feeding a useless monster.
4 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/SSQBxPW.jpg
The paleoschizo's stances on feathered rex, theropod feathers in general, the trustworthiness of china, the validity of Tyrannosauroidea, the quill knobs on Concavenator, and probably a few other topics I can't remember right now,
are all just direct copies and exaggerations of opinions I have expressed on Wauf over the years.
He's literally just a cheap copy of me without any of the thought or restraint I try to put into my own views. Which is both funny and sad to me. Not that he cares what I think of his efforts, but he probably should since he's just aping my own behavior and I can ignore him easily enough if I get bored with him.
>he, he, he
It has never been a he, it's been multiple people, trolling you, and each other, because this is Wauf and as a bit of a nut, you are easily trolled and provide a good memetic foundation for later trollings. You are getting bored because they are getting bored. You have the same reactions every time, the ones pretending to be you to counter troll have increased in number, and the inside joke is losing its appeal.
The original "he" was just the head of many, they are legion.
Paleontology isn't an important discipline so there was never a lot of serious interest here. If you take something gay seriously prepare to be trolled. Lulz! Now lurk moar before posting again
4 months ago
Anonymous
none of you are that bright. >we were pretending to be moronic!
nah, if you can pretend that well you're actually moronic. I've spent years watching it unroll, carefully cataloged and classified the mental errors required to reach a false conclusion.
I refuse to believe there are that many systematically stupid people here, brilliant enough to mimic the complexities of extreme debilitating autism and willing to do so just for laughs. It is in fact a person. The errors are genuine. I couldn't reproduce them if I tried, and I seriously doubt any normal human mind could. That would require a sort of genius that is completely lacking on this board.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>it cant be real because i am the smartest person here
The average IQ on Wauf is somewhere between 108 and 115 but mental illness makes it effectively 80. We have "oldgays" that came here this very year and just finished reading all of tbharchive to oldgay up. People are rapidly googling things, flipping through articles, and copying their peers to argue for fun. Your insanity, delusions, and egotism makes you not just an easy target, but someone who gives out free material so the troll collective can further develop while remaining totally unware of what's actually happening.
Enjoy your 300 post samegay session now
t. bugguy
4 months ago
Anonymous
>108 and 115
Sweet summer child, we're ALL moronic here.
4 months ago
Anonymous
the thread is done and I'm leaving soon.
If you think bugguy or paleoschizo's thought process is easy to replicate you don't understand what they're doing.
also you severely overestimate how 'trolled' I am. If I actually found the topic annoying I would've left over a decade ago, and wouldn't have spent years seeking the person out to ask their thoughts on things.
In fact their variety of moronation is extremely rare in public and relatively rare on the internet. I am not rare, I'm all over Wauf and lots of other sites. I never encounter the thought patterns I find so interesting outside of Wauf, and when I encounter them here it always ends up being a single user displaying them.
anyways, it's been a fun thread, though I didn't learn anything new about autism or stupidity. You guys enjoy your discussions of animals. I'm off again for a few months or years.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The problem with assuming the strictly dichotomous thought of bugguy or paleoschizo is just performance for my sake is that it occurs outside paleo threads regularly. It's rarely directed at me. When I do interact with it, the autist doesn't generally recognize me unless I allow him to. And of course once I recognize the autist he will admit to being paleoschizo even if he doesn't recognize me personally.
also the fact that I'm often not present on Wauf for a full year at a time and the performance continues without my even being here.
It would be fun to assume I had a whole stable of prostitutes performing for me personally, but that's simply not the case. Sadly.
the actual truth is Wauf has one really annoying autistic moron, and pretty much everyone here hates him. He is a significant fraction of board traffic, he posts relentlessly on many different topics day in and day out.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>he posts relentlessly
or she as the case may be.
as anons often point out he sounds like a woman, or a very effeminate gay man. All of his opinions are emotional rather than being based in facts. He cannot actually distinguish reality from his feelings about it.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>he's boring >has a full 5 page monolog/dialog with his wife about me
I'm flattered.
I meant moreso that real, actual palaeontologists would hate the way you (royal you) all are, not necessarily the questions and ignorance. The arrogance and rudeness, the racism and shoving people into boxes and 'I'm better than you because I read this paper and you didn't wah wah wah'. I say this as someone who works in a museum with real palaeontologists and paleontological professors who talk about their students, some of whom are itt apparently, and how much they hate people like this.
Stay here. Stay itt. Don't come to conferences or do a palaeontology degree. We're talking about you behind your back in the staff room.
>Real™ "paleontologists" are trannies and women
And much more accomplished than you. Sounds like a fun club, way better than whatever the frick you have going on. I'm gonna hang out with them.
>And much more accomplished than you.
No they're not.
I meant moreso that real, actual palaeontologists would hate the way you (royal you) all are, not necessarily the questions and ignorance. The arrogance and rudeness, the racism and shoving people into boxes and 'I'm better than you because I read this paper and you didn't wah wah wah'. I say this as someone who works in a museum with real palaeontologists and paleontological professors who talk about their students, some of whom are itt apparently, and how much they hate people like this.
Stay here. Stay itt. Don't come to conferences or do a palaeontology degree. We're talking about you behind your back in the staff room.
Oh we know that Real Paleontologists™ would NEVER question china or actually critically analyze ANY paper. We've covered this many times. But nobody buys your bullshit about it being "racism". We know it's about access and career advancement. Don't try to ride the high horse down there in hell where you live. As for your lack of ability to criticize each other's papers, that's literally why we have the replication crisis. You're a bunch of soft homies that got too accustomed to your field being a country club. It's not supposed to be and never was. You're supposed to be doing fricking work here, butthole, not socializing. We know EXACTLY what academia hates. We have the receipts. We hate (You).
>Oh we know that Real Paleontologists™ would NEVER question china
Except they have, and actually proved a specimen was a bit of microaptor glued to a primative bird called Yanornis.
Inb4 one forged fossil now proves all fossils of feathered dinosaurs from china are fake. >or actually critically analyze ANY paper.
I see you've never been awear of the Nanotyrannus/Tyrannosaurus ontogeny debate... > As for your lack of ability to criticize each other's papers, that's literally why we have the replication crisis.
Thats hilarious considering Megaraptora still ping pongs around the theropod tree with each new taxa/paper after a decade of the family being named and like 2 dozen genra described.
>that's literally why we have the replication crisis.
You do realize how trivially easy it is to reproduce phylogenies to check if paper is bullshitting you? Download TNT/Mesquite, find the matrix the paper uses in the supplimental and generate a tree... Hell you can make your own bespoke matricies by taking the individual values of taxa and combining them.
He doesn't actually know what a replication crisis is exactly, he just knows it gets responses from scientists if he mentions it.
the responses are just me pointing out how easy paleontology is to replicate, but he doesn't understand that. He seems to think the replication crisis refers to the CONCLUSIONS rather than the science behind them. Which is cute, and funny, and a pretty good indication he doesn't begin to understand science.
Anyways, his ignorance is on daily display. He's really good at it. Being ignorant that is. It's his entire schtick.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The reason he obsessively brings up the replication crisis is because I generally respond to his criticisms at length. Not because it pisses me off, but because I believe it's a very simple error that even a tard like him could learn to understand. And once he understands what a replication crisis is, and why it's not just different interpretations of an unchanging data set, he would begin to understand science.
I don't really care that an anonymous tard thinks paleontology suffers from a replication crisis, I'm merely trying to help him understand the thing he insists on trying to criticize and mostly missing. He mistakes my attempts to explain a very simple error on his part for anger that he's right. This is funny, but not unexpected from the mentally ill and deficient.
If there's anything he does that actually annoys me it's citing my own work back at me and telling me it doesn't mean what I say it means. But even that's a very minor irritation. I could just dox myself and prove to him I know what my work says. It's just not really worth having some literal schizophrenic of unknown capacity knowing where I live. And whether he understands my work or not, he cites it often and I don't mind that at all.
the common name corresponds to a paraphyletic grouping but valid clade names often contain translations of the common paraphyletic name.
Fish as a group traditionally doesn't include cows, lizards, and humans. But Osteichthyes, generally translated as "Bony Fishes" does contain turtles and bunnies and humans.
Just like dinosaurs are not lizards but the name itself implies lizards and that makes birds a type of lizard at least in name.
the schizo is just trolling the differences between common names and natural groups. We've been doing this for over a decade on Wauf, and it's usually pretty effective for getting replies like yours and mine. It's a troll I started, and paleoschizo continues ironically since he neither understands nor subscribes to cladistics.
I introduced the troll to Wauf as a method of communicating cladistic concepts.
the statement, "you are a FISH," wouldn't be surprising or offensive to any paleontologist born after 1960. We recognize humans at a variety of bony fish.
paleoschizo continues the troll as what he views as a reductio ad absurdum. Science in his mind has gone so far wrong that humans are now considered fishes. He sees the idea as absurd because he's basically just a creationist in fancy dress.
either usage communicates the same idea though. It varies only in what the writer thinks of the idea. The fact is scientists consider humans a type of fish, for very good reasons, no matter how the paleoschizo or anyone else here feels about it.
>The fact is scientists consider humans a type of fish, for very good reasons, no matter how the paleoschizo or anyone else here feels about it.
this leads to interesting contradictions, such as whales being fish even though evolutionists in the public have spent their entire life trying to explain why whales AREN'T fish.
Or the more plebian "Birds ARE dinosaurs" which irritates the frick out of the schizo because he is either a creationist or has a 1950's level understanding of taxonomy where replacement is the norm instead of inclusion. Either way he thinks the paraphyletic groupings of the past are somehow valid and descriptive of natural groups simply because he's a luddite fond of the past more than the present.
The schizo's failure to understand all this combined with mental moronation characterized as autism results in fun false equivalences.
in his mind if birds are dinosaurs then dinosaurs must be birds. He recognizes equivalences and dichotomies, but not nested sets. He can't comprehend a world where birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds. Or humans are fishes but not all fishes are humans.
this failure is evidenced with posts such as this one
>gallimimus is a bird
[...] >A keel
Moa are dinosaurs >A pygostyle
Makes Archaeopteryx a dinosaur despite not lacking a sternum entirly like moa >A tarsometatarsus
T.rex is a bird >A tibiotarsus
Heterodontosaurus is a bird
[...]
if you actually read the papers about conc youd know the latest consesus is that the arm bones were warped during preservatiuon and the latest reconstructions put the quill knobs exaxtlty where quill knobs ould have been and regardless of that see above. By your own sides arguments the clearly feathered Archaeopteryx would be a dinosaur...
where the poster mistakes a subset as an equivalence. This is either a brilliant troll imitating mental moronation, or more likely just a mentally moronic person.
>This is either a brilliant troll imitating mental moronation, or more likely just a mentally moronic person.
and of course he loves to get hundreds of responses by trying to impose his moronation on normal people.
this thread is a great example. He demands ONE USE of the maniraptoran toe claw, and insists that the various possible uses must engage in a death match to determine the ONE TRUE USE that automatically negates all others.
Real humans recognize that the world doesn't work like that, so they attempt to explain to the moron why there may be multiple uses instead of one right use and many wrong ones.
he calls them losers and declares himself the winner and thinks the normal minds are moronic. In real life he's just a moron prancing around misunderstanding everything and pissing off the normies that don't understand what he's doing. Those who do understand pity him the same way we pity a downie we meet as a diversity hire mopping floors at mcdonalds. It's sad when humans are born deformed, but they probably have some other good qualities somewhere.
Scientists generally aren't morons, so they automatically understand that the dromaeosaur toe claw had multiple uses
when a paper is published arguing for a particular use, it doesn't negate other uses, it's just included in the group of "possible uses."
There's no need to decide which one use is right and which others are wrong. It's possible they're all correct or none of them are correct or some are correct.
The autistic moron can't handle this variety of thought, and most here see it as dishonest, disingenuous, backtracking, wishy-washy, or whatever. And when an autistic moron that can't consider multiple possibilities calls you any of those things it's probably a compliment. You don't fit in their mental box, and that's a damn good thing.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The other thing the moron likes to do is complain that science isn't adequately communicating these concepts. Stuff like multiple possible conclusions, contradictory possible conclusions, one conclusion not necessarily excluding others.
This isn't a failure in scientific communication, this is a failure in mental abilities of the moron. You cannot communicate these ideas to someone who can't understand them, or doesn't want to.
So no amount of preaching is going to convince the OP that the sickle claw had multiple uses, or that he didn't win an argument by advocating for just one use. He's a moron, he can't understand the truth no matter how it's communicated.
4 months ago
Anonymous
We get fun results out of this, such as a moron saying scientists are dishonest or moronic because he can't even begin to understand what they're doing.
Or that a dromaeosaur climbing trees is a moronic idea because he cannot understand how animal behavior works.
This is entertaining for all involved, but guarantees no actual discussion of science will ever take place here. Because you can't discuss a topic nobody in the group understands. Anyone that does understand the topic is just going to leave as soon as they realize they're talking to a pack of literal morons. And that only takes a minute or two to see.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>such as a moron saying scientists are dishonest or moronic
What's absolutely insane is that you are STILL trying to claim bad and dishonest work isn't being done on a scale corrosive to the scientific endeavor itself. You damn well know better than this. EVERY scientist knows better than this, which means you're firmly on the side of the knowing liars, which makes you an enemy of science.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>What's absolutely insane is that you are STILL trying to claim bad and dishonest work isn't being done on a scale corrosive to the scientific endeavor itself.
I never said that.
you assume if someone disagrees with your wrong understanding of the world then they must be advocating your false opposite.
this is a simple false dichotomy, and you do it several times a day, every day, for decades. I'm sure people have told you you're mentally handicapped, including people far more qualified than me, and you choose to ignore it or aren't capable of understanding it.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Just because you personally cannot identify a zebra doesn't imply that zebras don't exist. It just means you're moronic.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Anyone that does understand the topic is just going to leave as soon as they realize they're talking to a pack of literal morons. And that only takes a minute or two to see.
That or shitpost for fun
4 months ago
Anonymous
>The other thing the moron likes to do is complain that science isn't adequately communicating these concepts
I most assuredly have never complained about that. That's the media's doing. "Scientists" get what they want to get across quite well. The ultimate example of this is the fact that EVERYONE believes nick wrongb***h "won" the debate about Torosaurus not being Triceratops vs Jack Horner. Problem is, he's not just objectively wrong, but everyone that agrees with him HAS NOT READ HIS FRICKING PAPER. Or if they have, they don't know shit about Ceratopsians. Anyone that did both would know that wrongb***h claims one of the largest Torosaurus skulls EVER FOUND was a "juvenile" and that he thinks he can sex Ceratopsians, which is fascinating, because if he can, he's the only person on Earth with the ability. A lot of stink is raised about the media misrepresenting scientific findings, but we're to the point now were a LOT of people are actually reading the papers now and that shit doesn't fly for long. The problem now is the "scientists" themselves because they're just plain doing shit work and trying to make up for it by cultivating a fanbase like the prostitutes they actually are.
>gallimimus is a bird
[...] >A keel
Moa are dinosaurs >A pygostyle
Makes Archaeopteryx a dinosaur despite not lacking a sternum entirly like moa >A tarsometatarsus
T.rex is a bird >A tibiotarsus
Heterodontosaurus is a bird
[...]
if you actually read the papers about conc youd know the latest consesus is that the arm bones were warped during preservatiuon and the latest reconstructions put the quill knobs exaxtlty where quill knobs ould have been and regardless of that see above. By your own sides arguments the clearly feathered Archaeopteryx would be a dinosaur...
I was trolling, Spesifically trying to get paleoschizo to bite.
>even though evolutionists in the public have spent their entire life trying to explain why whales AREN'T fish.
Yeah, that's because they didn't all used to be cladist morons and fish have different shared, OBJECTIVELY REAL characteristics that cetaceans lack and vice versa. It's worth noting at this point that cladism, like all CIA bullshit that rotted society, arose in the 60s. Cladists are so full of their own bullshit, they can't even begin to conceive of the fact that ALL classification systems are artificial and cladism is LESS natural and objective than the Linnaean system. Reptiles are a real facet of life. They exist, they have shared traits. They share a common ancestry. Birds branch off of that ancestry. So do mammals. But we don't call Vedic a Romance language because it's part of a monophyletic group with French. A Linnaean-like system is how Nature literally operates. It's how evolution works. That's why we use that sort of system to classify just about everything. A ginkgo doesn't ask an oak if its in the same order before trying to frick. The view that including every member of a group and all of its descendants in the same group is *better* than excluding groups that are different enough to warrant their own classification is an entirely artificial view. We've been over this before. It's like trying to introduce Latin being an Indo-European language into every single conversation about Latin. Every time. Until you get punched.
Scientists generally aren't morons, so they automatically understand that the dromaeosaur toe claw had multiple uses
when a paper is published arguing for a particular use, it doesn't negate other uses, it's just included in the group of "possible uses."
There's no need to decide which one use is right and which others are wrong. It's possible they're all correct or none of them are correct or some are correct.
The autistic moron can't handle this variety of thought, and most here see it as dishonest, disingenuous, backtracking, wishy-washy, or whatever. And when an autistic moron that can't consider multiple possibilities calls you any of those things it's probably a compliment. You don't fit in their mental box, and that's a damn good thing.
>Scientists generally aren't morons
The replication crisis that you and every other unworthy STEMisraelite claims isn't happening says otherwise. You're also losing the narrative. So not only are you objectively wrong about the science itself, which you're destroying with your dumbshit politicking, you're losing your audience - the public - also.
>Science in his mind has gone so far wrong that humans are now considered fishes.
God damn, you are WAY dumber than you think you are. See above. We have always known that humans are descended from fish. Saying humans ARE fish is reddit, not science. You literally can't justify cladism. Examined for more than one second, the entire system falls apart. The Linnaean system is saying you get your family name from your parents and belong to the same family. Cladism is saying you are your mother and being smug about it while your family tells you you need to start bathing before coming to the christmas party.
saw you got banned in the other thread while they left my replies to you up. Jannies work in mysterious ways.
They should know by now, banning you just makes you post more. Or they should haul out the rangeban and wipe you off the board for a few months. I've long been curious how much the board traffic would drop if they just got rid of you.
Well yeah, this isn't the only board I post on. It's my full time job to disrupt CIA propaganda. I get banned about twice a day at this point. I just wish they weren't such redditrannies about it and deleted all a banned person's posts. If they're going to go full reddit they should just replace the comments with [comment removed by moderator] and [deleted].
Blue boards are cancer and always have been. They're a backdoor for redditry to enter this holy ground. Frick the CIA. Death to the great satan. And israelites rape kids.
>paleoschizo for feathers, trannies and chinks >old paleontologist guy for dick measuring, backpedaling and incorrect assertions about modern animals >autist who sees one random throwaway statement that’s incorrect, jumps in halfway and slides down the entire thread on it >moron who argues over the exact specifics of every single statement made in the thread and hounds every single minor contradiction to a single earlier sentence of no importance >OP who knew exactly what he was doing when he posted a thread asking a benign dino question
Yup, this is certainly an Wauf paleo thread. Am I missing anyone? Raise your hand
yes, this is one of the stranger ideas that has been floated. Also the subject of a disney cartoon or two if I remember right.
they clamped on to a struggling animal and simply began eating it.
the main problem with the idea is they'd get squished like a mosquito. That might give others and opportunity to attack, but the first few attackers would be dead anyways.
which fits the death assemblages we've found, but seems like a really bad strategy in the long run.
The most likely scenario is they were just using these claws to hold smaller prey still while they ate them like modern eagles.
These would just kick and impale things like cassowary.
Read the comments regarding cassowaries.
>(until you heel-turn and tut at me and say "ah no I'm so above it all that I acknowledge I might be wrong teehee")
beginning to understand science. Perhaps not practice it, but understand it at least.
no academic would see uncertainty as a weakness. That's dogma.
If you are a mere hobbyist as the paleoschizo certainly is, then I will tell you- again- there are multiple sites in the Flaming Cliffs that have produced protoceratops bones with tooth marks from velociraptor, and no sites that have produced the reverse.
>no academic would see uncertainty as a weakness. That's dogma.
I can understand actual scientists that work in their fields academically doing so. What I CANNOT comprehend is them actually eating their own horseshit that modern science is objective and not just some attempt at mimicking the 24 hour tabloid news cycle for views- excuse me citations. The entirety of modern academia is not just overrun with dogma, it is obnoxiously so. Offensively so to the casual observer. The emperor isn't just naked, he's been flayed alive and he's getting gore all over everybody.
>there are multiple sites in the Flaming Cliffs that have produced protoceratops bones with tooth marks from velociraptor, and no sites that have produced the reverse.
You know, if you would just stick to the facts like this, you'd be a halfway decent poster. Most people just want to discuss the actual findings, not engage in pissing contests.
>I'm not paleoschizo, I just look, sound, and act exactly like him. >so there
excellent. Thank you for your time today. It has been informative.
That's not me.
>I'm not sure you actually do think so.
I don't at all.
he thinks you're either me or my wife. Which would be a weird suspicion even for someone with multiple personalities and even if we assume that disorder really exists.
No, I think you me and him are just three extremely similar people. All here for exactly the same reasons.
Oh so you're not divorced then? I heard you broke up.
>The entirety of modern academia is not just overrun with dogma, it is obnoxiously so
Your main problem in these threads and elsewhere is that people who care about paleontology are obsessed with rocks and bones, and don't give a frick about your views on race, religion, politics, persons, or science.
Just bones and rocks. Obsessed to the point where we might enjoy tangentially related topics like illustrations or ecology or evolution, but certainly not the bullshit you relate to.
Not only do your complaints fall on deaf ears, but they're irritating to people who just want to talk about rocks and bones. You know this, and you keep trying to steer the conversation into culture and politics anyways. So we just ignore you.
There's nothing you can do about this because you're not smart enough to talk about rocks or bones in any meaningful way. And even if you were smart enough, you're simply not interested. It's taken you 4 years to gain less knowledge of anatomy than we require of candy stripers and nursing school candidates. You know less than the average ambulance driver. Your knowledge of rocks is even more abysmal. I know you're capable of learning this stuff, you just don't care.
Conversely, the people that care about bones and rocks don't give a frick about the things you care about. You're in the wrong thread, on the wrong board, and very certainly talking to the wrong people. Sadly for you, people like you don't care about dinosaurs, so you're never really going to find anyone to talk to. Not in any meaningful way. Not about dinosaurs.
>So we just ignore you.
These threads consistently reaching 200-300 replies with the autistic screeching of you two making up the majority of it disagrees
>These threads consistently reaching 200-300 replies with the autistic screeching of you two making up the majority of it disagrees
Obviously not productive as in creating something new or pushing the boundaries of science, but at least a decent informative thread.
Maybe it feels like groundhog day for you, but while there's been posts here about this in the past that had more or less successful discussion (mostly less), the one from the 22nd of December that you've screenshotted the archive search for literally had 2 frog pics and a "bump" as the only three replies, this hardly like /k/ where the shills will repost, post for post, threads from as little as a week before and then delete it when someone notices.
>the one from the 22nd of December that you've screenshotted the archive search for literally had 2 frog pics and a "bump" as the only three replies,
If I decide to blow up a paleo thread I will
If I ignore a paleo thread it goes away.
depends on my mood and how much work I have to do.
>If I decide to blow up a paleo thread I will >If I ignore a paleo thread it goes away. >depends on my mood and how much work I have to do.
I don't think you realise how pathetic that sounds dude. It is not glorious to start a fight with a troony obsessed moron online that goes for 300 replies
4 months ago
Anonymous
>It is not glorious to start a fight with a troony obsessed moron online that goes for 300 replies
I haven't seriously argued with that gay for about a year.
there are (at least) 3 autists here. One of them in particular typically gets ignored. Even when he has something interesting to say, it's usually not worth touching that wasps' nest.
Usually I find the date range more informative than the content of your past posts
but sometimes I like to look back and see you calling me a moron for something and then a year or two later adopting my view and pretending you came by it on your own.
You are my ball of clay. I mold and shape you. You don't admit it, but you don't need to.
of course "therapod" is a typo I purposefully and regularly introduced prior to 2015 to see if anyone noticed. The first few times were mistakes, I suck at spelling. But since nobody mentioned it I sorta ran with it.
>I was merely pretending to be moronic, it was actually a joke the whole time
This is like the allosaurus face biting thing. Dinogays are a scourge on this board
4 months ago
Anonymous
I showed you why and you still didn't understand.
Identifying a specific user and tracking their past posts is not just a joke.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>This is like the allosaurus face biting thing.
some things I never tell you because I'm interested to see if you learn them on your own.
Look at all the interesting velociraptor factoids I didn't shove in anon's face this thread. Or dental comparisons of various unrelated herbivores. I'm curious if he learns of his mistakes on his own.
Usually I find the date range more informative than the content of your past posts
but sometimes I like to look back and see you calling me a moron for something and then a year or two later adopting my view and pretending you came by it on your own.
You are my ball of clay. I mold and shape you. You don't admit it, but you don't need to.
lucky for us this extremely marketable organ managed to survive and proliferate across the globe over millions of years despite having no function aside from selling toys in the far distant future.
Not a young Earth creationist, but I definitely wish china had never existed.
Cassowaries also walk on their claws, and they're not dealing with the same evolutionary pressures as their ancient hypercarnivore cousins. Maybe with enough time in a more hostile environment cassowaries would evolve isolated sickle shaped claws. >You mean watering holes? Yeah, just like T. rex
[...]
[...]
Where is the paper for that, and does it account for observable phenomenon in the modern day, where multiple packs of the same species of animal will converge on and fight for a kill?
[...] >not how claws work. They grow continuously, so if you're not grinding them down on something they'll eventually reach the ground.
Like a fricking babirusa? Are you just pretending to be moronic at this point? Idk how you could possibly reach that conclusion. You think cats just let their claws grow until they reach the ground? They actively sharpen them on trees and other surfaces, like ancient dromaeosaurs totally could have as well. Jesus frick try to think even a little bit abstractly.
>Cassowaries also walk on their claws
Ironic you say this because guess what raptor toes are designed for? Terrestrial movement. This is why the whole "arboreal" argument is batshit moronic. It's like claiming ostrich feet are for perching on branches.
>Maybe with enough time in a more hostile environment cassowaries would evolve isolated sickle shaped claws.
Why on Earth would they? Their claws actually CAN disembowel animals several times their size. If anything cassowaries are far more adapted for disemboweling prey than raptors ever were. And cassowaries are ratites, they don't have hypercarnivore ancestors. I know it's fashionable with furgays to believe this shit, but Dromaeosaurs are not the ancestors of birds. No, I don't give a shit about your fake shit from china. Never have, never will. Eventually, even you will come to understand that no amount of chinese hoaxes will ever affect the truth of paleontology.
You really, REALLY want to believe that Jurassic Park raptors are real, but the truth found in the fossils simply does not line up.
They jabbed it right in the neck of prey to puncture either the jugular or windpipe. Think like a fang on their foot.
This recent "pinning down" bullshit is so fricking dumb since we have a famous fossil of them using it on the throat. Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration; it was a meat hook plunged into the neck.
>They jabbed it right in the neck of prey to puncture either the jugular or windpipe. Think like a fang on their foot.
Interesting hypothesis, lets talk about this. >Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration; it was a meat hook...
Yes. >This recent "pinning down" bullshit is so fricking dumb since we have a famous fossil of them using it on the throat.
Take any predator/prey interaction inference you make from MPC-D 100/512, MPC-D 100/25 (the "fighting dinosaurs" fossil, the proceratops specimen and the velociraptor specimen respectively), with a spoon full of salt. Things are obviously not going as MPC-D 100/25 intended them to go.
Is it possible that Velociraptors kicked under the frills of Proceratops to stab them in the jugular with their sickle claw? Sure. Is the fact that MPC-D 100/25 is doing this to MPC-D 100/512 evidence that this was their preferred attack mode? No, MPC-D 100/25 is laying on its side and has been restrained by MPC-D 100/512. This is a very dangerous position for a predator to be in (as evidenced by the fact that MPC-D 100/25 fricking died like this). As a fast moving carnivore, the safety of a Velociraptor's lower leg is probably once of his primary concerns any time he's in conflict with an animal large enough to hurt him. Anything that happens to him that threatens his mobility threatens his life. I could see him attacking the neck of a prey item with his claws, if he can do it in such a way that the prey item cannot pinch restrain his leg and harm him. I don't know enough about Proceratops neck mobility to say that this means he couldn't necessarily attack the back or sides of the neck from above and behind, but he's certainly not going to assume the motherfricking blowjobjutsu ground guard or half guard (like MPC-D 100/25) as an attack strategy. These animals are in an equal struggle and only idiots end up in an equal struggle, a predator's job is to make everything as unequal as possible to control your risk.
>a wild hog eating a fox would be more accurate
the teeth are very similar to plateosaurus, iguanodon, and hadrosaurs. Generally interpreted as herbivores rather than omnivores. Not to say it couldn't have killed the velociraptor, I just doubt it would've eaten it if it did. There's a lot of fossils of protoceratops that got eaten by velociraptor, but no cases of the reverse that I'm aware of.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>the teeth are very similar to plateosaurus, iguanodon, and hadrosaurs.
4 months ago
Anonymous
former: boar
this: protoceratops
not 1:1 but clearly within the same realm
4 months ago
Anonymous
>not 1:1 but clearly within the same realm
yeah, close enough right? Details don't matter, as long as they look a little similar in side view.
So we've decided protoceratops was a predator, and velociraptor was an important part of its diet. It didn't have quills, but it did happen to die on top of some quill-like plants whenever it could. Lots of animals did this. Longisquama died on top of the same plant every time.
when protoceratops wasn't busy hunting velociraptors or dying on top of quill-like plants, it was evolving hooves and wings to make it more pig-like.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>hadrosaur teeth are quite different from the rest of dinosauria, being very specialized for battery chewing,
you've literally never seen a hadrosaur tooth, have you?
https://i.imgur.com/pvvngCG.jpg
>while ceratopsians had a much more basal and less complicated method of mastication
or none at all.
using big words and latin binomials or museum specimen numbers makes a person look smart for about 5 seconds until they manage to prove they know the jargon but don't understand the meaning. It's funny, but not in a lol sort of way. More of a "that person is really interested in the topic but too lazy to learn the basics" sort of way. Autism is funny because it produces paradoxical results. The guy that knows everything there is to know about polishing intake manifold ports but doesn't know how to drive sort of funny. The guy that can name every part of a camera but never takes any pictures sort of way. Not laugh out loud funny, just an interesting and amusing paradox.
Uhh... I think this is a bit of an over-reaction to my posts. I don't frequent Wauf as much as some of the people itt so I'm not sure what combination of factors is involved here: >Do you think I'm the paleoschizo? >Are some of these posts paleoschizo? I genuinely can't tell, haven't built up that pattern recognition well enough yet >My suggestions being "I'm right you're wrong" instead of "I think this, I think it's reasonable" >Black person Black person Black person idk
I just think it's a very reasonable position to suggest this. Also with regards to their chewing mechanisms, no, they literally DO have a basal method thereof, ceratopsians are oddly basal in a lot of ways, despite their obvious and prominent derived features. Hadrosaurs especially really do have very derived chewing mechanisms comparatively and are not a good analogy.
4 months ago
Anonymous
supplemental 1/2
4 months ago
Anonymous
supplemental 2/2
4 months ago
Anonymous
instead of asking how plateosaurus, iguanodon, protoceratops, hadrossaurs, and brachiosaur teeth are similar, you have chosen to look at the differences.
instead of asking how protoceratops and hog teeth are different, you have chosen to look at the similarities.
These are interesting choices, they indicate a desire to defend a point, not learn anything.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>they indicate a desire to defend a point, not learn anything.
When Wauf doesn't want to learn something I will usually oblige. The process of refusing to learn results in an interesting board culture, a head-cannon if you will. The ways in which belief about dinosaurs here differ from the rest of the world are interesting, and amusing.
The idea of protoceratops running around killing and eating velociraptors is funny. As is the idea of chinese laborers carefully drawing feathers onto fossil dinosaurs with charcoal pencils. Or longisquama and protoceratops having the innate instincts to fall over dead on certain very carefully arranged plants sometimes, or all the time. These are fun ideas, and they don't need to be refuted. Let the more serious forums discuss why that's moronic. This board is preserved in all its schizophrenic glory as a testament to how the ignorant interpret reality. It's good stuff. Like the night ape neanderthal or the thick mesozoic atmosphere soup, or even the timecube. It's valuable not for its accuracy, but for its imagination. Art, not science. Pretty good art at that. Approaching genius at least for being wildly contrarian and having the appearance of reason.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I don't think ceratopsians participating in incidental carnivory is even particularly rare of a stance. I don't believe the rest of the "canon" you suggested there by the way, to further illustrate that I'm not the paleoschizo and/or to indicate that I'm being genuine. >timecube
Oh. Do you get all your opinions from youtube?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't think ceratopsians participating in incidental carnivory is even particularly rare of a stance
it would be surprising if they didn't
it would also be surprising if one of their preys happened to be their main predator. Like a zebra eating a live hyena just because it got the chance.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I just think it's a very reasonable position to suggest this.
you did not ask any questions, so your opinion will never evolve.
You asserted a couple laughable premises and hoped someone would argue them with you or agree. I have chosen the latter. You are clearly right, you are the expert.
we have trained you wrong as a joke.
4 months ago
Anonymous
instead of asking how plateosaurus, iguanodon, protoceratops, hadrossaurs, and brachiosaur teeth are similar, you have chosen to look at the differences.
instead of asking how protoceratops and hog teeth are different, you have chosen to look at the similarities.
These are interesting choices, they indicate a desire to defend a point, not learn anything.
this reeks of disingenuousness. >you did not ask any questions, so your opinion will never evolve. >You asserted a couple laughable premises and hoped someone would argue them with you or agree.
I've provided a stance that is within reason. You dismissing it as trolling is not grounds for me to change my opinion. In fact, I genuinely attempted to highlight the comparison YOU provided as faulty. Does that mean your premise is laughable and that I should dismiss it? No, I said "no, here are some significant differences." Hadrosaur jaws are ludicrously derived and completely dissimilar to ceratopsian jaws. If you had compared them to stegosaurs or something I might not have even raised an eyebrow.
instead of asking how plateosaurus, iguanodon, protoceratops, hadrossaurs, and brachiosaur teeth are similar, you have chosen to look at the differences.
instead of asking how protoceratops and hog teeth are different, you have chosen to look at the similarities.
These are interesting choices, they indicate a desire to defend a point, not learn anything.
>instead of asking how plateosaurus, iguanodon, protoceratops, hadrossaurs, and brachiosaur teeth are similar, you have chosen to look at the differences.
Those are all significantly different from one another in method of actuation and overall shape beyond superficial similarities. >instead of asking how protoceratops and hog teeth are different, you have chosen to look at the similarities.
I used them as a one-off comparison, admitting in the initial post that it was not 1:1, because they are both capable of eating the same foodstuffs and arguably analogous. Ceratopsian teeth are NOT exactly the same as hog teeth, and DO more closely resemble other dinosaurs they were related to - but in positing my stance, I compared them due to them both being mounted to relatively simple jaws that do not engage in a complicated form of chewing and are relatively flat and relatively wide. The fact that I wrote this out instead you looking at that initial post and going "ah I can see his comparison" is what's laughable here. >These are interesting choices, they indicate a desire to defend a point, not learn anything.
Why should I learn from someone (or some people) who are clearly excessively sardonic, aggressive, and unintelligent?
1/2
4 months ago
Anonymous
not to mention that from the very beginning I was painting this as a state of incidental predation. I said it was the predator in that altercation, someone sarcastically responded as a gazelle killing a cheetah, and I retorted with a much more reasonable example of a boar eating a fox. >Not ultimately common >Disregards any STANDARD predatory behavior >frankly irrelevant to anatomy, judging on how often obligate herbivores eat small animals >body size, diets, and ecology of those involved in the comparison are within reasonable distance
Ask yourself this: Have there been boars that ate a fox? Could you reasonably believe that IF (highlighting: IF) ceratopsians occupied a niche closer to a boar than, say, a rhino or horse (which is well within reason) and IF (highlighting: IF) dromaeosaurs occupied a niche closer to a fox than, say, a wildcat or coyote (which is well within reason) then COULD (highlighting: COULD) a protoceratops predate a velociraptor? The answer is yes, with those prerequisites. Do not disregard this nuanced (highlighting: nuanced) stance as an objective or extreme stance, which would suggest it as the default. I am saying: This scenaril preserved in the fossil record reads to me as incidental predation from an odd situation.
2/2
4 months ago
Anonymous
I REALLY doubt Protoceratops were preying on Velociraptor. The logistics of this situation are - to use a scientific term - whack.
https://i.imgur.com/Zt62bHt.jpg
>they indicate a desire to defend a point, not learn anything.
When Wauf doesn't want to learn something I will usually oblige. The process of refusing to learn results in an interesting board culture, a head-cannon if you will. The ways in which belief about dinosaurs here differ from the rest of the world are interesting, and amusing.
The idea of protoceratops running around killing and eating velociraptors is funny. As is the idea of chinese laborers carefully drawing feathers onto fossil dinosaurs with charcoal pencils. Or longisquama and protoceratops having the innate instincts to fall over dead on certain very carefully arranged plants sometimes, or all the time. These are fun ideas, and they don't need to be refuted. Let the more serious forums discuss why that's moronic. This board is preserved in all its schizophrenic glory as a testament to how the ignorant interpret reality. It's good stuff. Like the night ape neanderthal or the thick mesozoic atmosphere soup, or even the timecube. It's valuable not for its accuracy, but for its imagination. Art, not science. Pretty good art at that. Approaching genius at least for being wildly contrarian and having the appearance of reason.
>The idea of protoceratops running around killing and eating velociraptors is funny.
Yes.
>As is the idea of chinese laborers carefully drawing feathers onto fossil dinosaurs with charcoal pencils
No.
>Or longisquama and protoceratops having the innate instincts to fall over dead on certain very carefully arranged plants sometimes, or all the time.
Honey, you need to do one of two things: either actually start studying something other than Theropods, or only stick to commenting on Theropods.
https://i.imgur.com/ux3ZAEt.jpg
I don't think ceratopsians participating in incidental carnivory is even particularly rare of a stance. I don't believe the rest of the "canon" you suggested there by the way, to further illustrate that I'm not the paleoschizo and/or to indicate that I'm being genuine. >timecube
Oh. Do you get all your opinions from youtube?
It's a common opinion, but probably wrong. No more than cattle. Ceratopsians were not boars.
>I don't think ceratopsians participating in incidental carnivory is even particularly rare of a stance
it would be surprising if they didn't
it would also be surprising if one of their preys happened to be their main predator. Like a zebra eating a live hyena just because it got the chance.
>but think about the experts! That's not a very scientific-concensus approved opinion you have!
[...] >it would also be surprising if one of their preys happened to be their main predator.
I personally estimate velociraptor to not really be capable of taking down a protoceratops in any but the most precarious of conditions, similar to my earlier example. But, if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree. It is kind of hard to tell what weight classes are genuinely compatible with regards to predation, like this that someone above [...] was pointing out. I just think the weight and weaponry doesn't line up well. That beak is no joke.
There's no way that Velociraptor was a "significant predator" on Protoceratops other than babies (which isn't unlikely considering how populous Protoceratops was). As I've pointed out several times now, the famous dueling pair clearly consists of a losing Velociraptor and a winning Protoceratops and this has nothing to do with predation on either side. It's clearly interspecies conflict, likely over territory or something.
>That beak is no joke.
Very correct. People seriously understimate the ability of Ceratopsians to frick shit up. Imagine an elephant with the head of an Alligator Snapping Turtle. These animals regularly KILLED the apex predators of their respective faunal assemblages.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I've provided a stance that is within reason.
interesting that so few experts arrive at your reasonable conclusion. Does this cause dissonance, or are you unaware? I think you just mistake your own level of knowledge for the equal of the experts. You mistake yourself for an expert.
you use a lot of big words, but fail to understand meanings. And you assume you're smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. This doesn't require any particular response from me.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>but think about the experts! That's not a very scientific-concensus approved opinion you have!
>I don't think ceratopsians participating in incidental carnivory is even particularly rare of a stance
it would be surprising if they didn't
it would also be surprising if one of their preys happened to be their main predator. Like a zebra eating a live hyena just because it got the chance.
>it would also be surprising if one of their preys happened to be their main predator.
I personally estimate velociraptor to not really be capable of taking down a protoceratops in any but the most precarious of conditions, similar to my earlier example. But, if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree. It is kind of hard to tell what weight classes are genuinely compatible with regards to predation, like this that someone above
https://i.imgur.com/5mm7HFE.jpg
Quick somebody tell these wolves that this bison is too big for them.
was pointing out. I just think the weight and weaponry doesn't line up well. That beak is no joke.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>That's not a very scientific-concensus approved opinion you have!
the idea isn't that you should agree with the experts, rather you should understand why they hold their opinions. In some cases that understanding will require decades of learning. In some cases it would take a lifetime. But disagreeing with an opinion you don't fully understand is much easier, and faster, and more fun.
>if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree.
....
>That beak is no joke.
indeed. There's a fair chance if they hadn't gotten buried, the fighting dinos would've both been dead anyways. But no reason to think either carcass would've been eaten by other protoceratops and plenty of reason to think they'd both be eaten by velociraptors.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>But disagreeing with an opinion you don't fully understand is much easier, and faster, and more fun.
stop being a twat. This is the only part of this post I find issue with, to be clear. I hope you'll view this post with full clarity.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm telling you if you actually care, dig deeper.
this isn't about you or me as persons. This is words on a screen telling you if you're interested in the topic, dig deeper.
If you don't care I also don't care. There is no harm in not being familiar with every single fossil to ever come out of mongolia. Or anywhere for that matter.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Why do you have to be like this? Do you have a superiority complex or something? Why do you think I wouldn't be perfectly capable of deciding how far into such a topic I want to delve on my own? Why do you assume I have a surface-level understand, and that you're "teaching" me? These are rhetorical questions, I don't actually want you to respond here. Just think about it, dude.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>understand
*understanding
that's what I get for not proofreading
4 months ago
Anonymous
>display some obvious ignorance of both dinosaurs and yourself. >why do you think I'm ignorant?
kek >I don't actually want you to respond here.
I don't doubt that at all.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Why do you have to have the last word? Why do you think I'm the one displaying ignorance when you've literally agreed to everything I've asserted? Why the smug attitude?
>I've provided a stance that is within reason.
interesting that so few experts arrive at your reasonable conclusion. Does this cause dissonance, or are you unaware? I think you just mistake your own level of knowledge for the equal of the experts. You mistake yourself for an expert.
you use a lot of big words, but fail to understand meanings. And you assume you're smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. This doesn't require any particular response from me.
>And you assume you're smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. This doesn't require any particular response from me.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Why do you have to have the last word? Why do you think I'm the one displaying ignorance when you've literally agreed to everything I've asserted? Why the smug attitude?
rhetorical questions?
you spent several days trying to politely tell me why my opinion is wrong.
but you immediately become offended and drop the politeness if I suggest that there are factors you're not considering.
you are the twat you think me to be. You have the superiority complex you accuse me of. And not once have you honestly questioned your own knowledge.
I on the other hand have taken every one of your failures and asked myself if I am also making them. This is how we differ. The ignorant are extremely confident, while the knowledgeable question themselves constantly. It's funny. A joke you don't seem to get.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>This is how we differ.
conversely, we are quite similar in that neither of us looks in the mirror and likes what he sees.
that's the paleoschizo's genius. Not being wrong, but being our mirror.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>you spent several days trying to politely tell me why my opinion is wrong.
Protoceratops is the predator in that example, fwiw
>1 day and 2 hours ago
I didn't read the rest of your post because I think you still somehow think I'm somebody else. That's the only way that statement makes sense.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>That's the only way that statement makes sense.
so when 'somebody' calls subadult dinosaurs babies it's obvious hyperbole, but if I call a day several days that's to be taken literally?
not being sarcastic, just curious how you gays communicate. It's a bit odd.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>so when 'somebody' calls subadult dinosaurs babies it's obvious hyperbole,
You're doing it again. I never said that. You must be thinking of someone else. It's reasonable, considering how autistic these threads evidently are.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>It's reasonable, considering how autistic these threads evidently are.
In my limited experience it's very rare to find a person that uses expert lingo but lacks the formal education in science that teaches to first rigorously question your own knowledge and opinions.
to find several such people in such an obscure corner of the internet is fabulous. I don't ID users by their knowledge, but by their gaps, lapses, and lacunae. If you are not all one person, we have been blessed with a near-miraculous assemblage of highly qualified technicians without a shred of self-reflection or curiosity. Not impossible, just very fortunate.
4 months ago
Anonymous
wow you're a modern philosopher dude, how interesting. Yeah so unlikely, not like what you consider "expert lingo" to just be normal words that are accessed by regular hobbyists on the topic. No sir, I'm just pretending to be someone else this whole time and you're the only other person in the thread (until you heel-turn and tut at me and say "ah no I'm so above it all that I acknowledge I might be wrong teehee")
4 months ago
Anonymous
>(until you heel-turn and tut at me and say "ah no I'm so above it all that I acknowledge I might be wrong teehee")
beginning to understand science. Perhaps not practice it, but understand it at least.
no academic would see uncertainty as a weakness. That's dogma.
If you are a mere hobbyist as the paleoschizo certainly is, then I will tell you- again- there are multiple sites in the Flaming Cliffs that have produced protoceratops bones with tooth marks from velociraptor, and no sites that have produced the reverse.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>beginning to understand science. Perhaps not practice it, but understand it at least.
I'm not "beginning" to, I'm pointing out your moronation. >no academic would see uncertainty as a weakness. That's dogma.
You're attempting to apply some decadent non-philosophy to a non-discussion on a board on Wauf. This is anti-intellectualism. >If you are a mere hobbyist as the paleoschizo certainly is,
what is this even supposed to mean? Are you seriously trying to argue something this intransitive? No, of course not, you'll be nonchalant and detached as always, smugly confident that you're more intelligent than me due to your waxing and whinging. >then I will tell you- again- there are multiple sites in the Flaming Cliffs that have produced protoceratops bones with tooth marks from velociraptor, and no sites that have produced the reverse.
uhhh dude are you having a dissociative episode? You never even said this itt at all, let alone to me specifically. >- again-
dude you REALLY need to check your superiority complex. You are proving to everyone reading this that you're incapable of absconding from your stance. Which is pretty funny looking back to you accusing me of similar, but whatever.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>You never even said this itt at all, let alone to me specifically.
>a wild hog eating a fox would be more accurate
the teeth are very similar to plateosaurus, iguanodon, and hadrosaurs. Generally interpreted as herbivores rather than omnivores. Not to say it couldn't have killed the velociraptor, I just doubt it would've eaten it if it did. There's a lot of fossils of protoceratops that got eaten by velociraptor, but no cases of the reverse that I'm aware of.
>There's a lot of fossils of protoceratops that got eaten by velociraptor, but no cases of the reverse that I'm aware of.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You think that you saying >Velociraptors ate protoceratops
is the same as >there are multiple sites in the Flaming Cliffs that have produced protoceratops bones with tooth marks from velociraptor, and no sites that have produced the reverse.
? Because one is an assertion, and the other is a source citation. Not to mention that the context between the two are very different... The former being a tacit statement that I acquiesced to
>but think about the experts! That's not a very scientific-concensus approved opinion you have!
[...] >it would also be surprising if one of their preys happened to be their main predator.
I personally estimate velociraptor to not really be capable of taking down a protoceratops in any but the most precarious of conditions, similar to my earlier example. But, if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree. It is kind of hard to tell what weight classes are genuinely compatible with regards to predation, like this that someone above [...] was pointing out. I just think the weight and weaponry doesn't line up well. That beak is no joke.
>But, if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree.
and the latter being a random source cited after... I guess randomly??? I literally didn't even say anything related to it in that post. And again, prior in the thread I had already agreed with that assertion. I'm going to go over this again very carefully to make sure there is no confusion: >At one point, you state that velociraptor ate protoceratops. >At a later point, I say that velociraptor ate protoceratops. >Then, several posts after it's clear the discussion of protoceratops' and velociraptor's ecological relations, you post a source that you claim to have brought up before and that I ignored. >I claim you said nothing of the sort, because I did not recall and could not find any such statement prior (relating to it being a source, because I believed that you were saying I had dismissed something you said with regards to their ecological relation being documented, which is untrue) >when in reality you stated this for seemingly no reason, because it was something I agreed with you on, and something that was not relevant to the post in question
Which, frankly, is bizarre behavior! I don't really get it. It's not very conducive to a conversation, and doesn't seem like a coherent thought process led to it.
>I'm not paleoschizo, I just look, sound, and act exactly like him. >so there
excellent. Thank you for your time today. It has been informative.
No, I'm not "paleoschizo", as I've maintained this whole time. I don't understand why you think so. I'm not sure you actually do think so.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm not sure you actually do think so.
I don't at all.
he thinks you're either me or my wife. Which would be a weird suspicion even for someone with multiple personalities and even if we assume that disorder really exists.
No, I think you me and him are just three extremely similar people. All here for exactly the same reasons.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm not paleoschizo, I just look, sound, and act exactly like him. >so there
excellent. Thank you for your time today. It has been informative.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>- again-
was a hint to go back and check your knowledge. I already knew you didn't read the comment because of this
>but think about the experts! That's not a very scientific-concensus approved opinion you have!
[...] >it would also be surprising if one of their preys happened to be their main predator.
I personally estimate velociraptor to not really be capable of taking down a protoceratops in any but the most precarious of conditions, similar to my earlier example. But, if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree. It is kind of hard to tell what weight classes are genuinely compatible with regards to predation, like this that someone above [...] was pointing out. I just think the weight and weaponry doesn't line up well. That beak is no joke.
>But, if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree.
I kept dropping hints to see if you'd check your knowledge. I checked it several times myself just to make sure I wasn't being ignorant in public - again. I do that a lot because I don't read every word of every comment I respond to. How you react to being told you're mistaken is more interesting to me than the actual mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. That's why a certain amount of uncertainty is useful.
Sorry for the gotcha, but I did try to warn you.
>both were attempts at explaining why they attacked animals just to let them wander off and die later.
The septic bite theory was not based observations of Komodo dragons hunting typical prey, just stories from locals of them eating domestic water buffalo which usually don’t attempt to flee in the first place. There were no observations of dragons biting prey and then catching it again days later because that doesn’t happen. For starters even with the knowledge that they have true venom, that’s still not how they hunt since their venom is too weak to incapacitate prey to begin with >Some predators release prey on purpose
Sure, but not for days. That would be something like a great white releasing a seal for a few minutes to bleed out >true, unless they're territorial, or social, or determined trackers
This is not the case for animals like this either
>This is not the case for animals like this either
no? Are we talking Komodos or velociraptors or both here?
4 months ago
Anonymous
you're mixing me and the other anon up, I haven't said a single thing about komodo dragons, you self-absorbed moron.
>I'm not sure you actually do think so.
I don't at all.
he thinks you're either me or my wife. Which would be a weird suspicion even for someone with multiple personalities and even if we assume that disorder really exists.
No, I think you me and him are just three extremely similar people. All here for exactly the same reasons.
>No, I think you me and him are just three extremely similar people.
I suppose so >All here for exactly the same reasons.
and I certainly hope not. I'm out.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>you're mixing me and the other anon up, I haven't said a single thing about komodo dragons, you self-absorbed moron.
you're full of fun irony today
4 months ago
Anonymous
>you're mixing me and the other anon up, I haven't said a single thing about komodo dragons, you self-absorbed moron.
I am not and it was very self-absorbed and a bit moronic of you to think I was. >I certainly hope not
You're here to teach, not learn. I confess to the same failing, and the schizo obviously doesn't want to learn anything. At almost no point in any of these threads does someone say, "gosh that's really interesting! Thanks for teaching me a thing!"
because everyone here fancies themselves somewhat of an expert, and certainly not a student. Despite the fact that real experts are also students. >I'm out.
saves both of us some embarrassment I suppose.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I am not
Yes you are. And before you try to guess which one I am, don’t
4 months ago
Anonymous
The post was directed at 2 different anons
it doesn't matter which of the 2 anons you are
if you think both replies were directed at you, then you are being a self-absorbed moron.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>cute Dendrolagus
Okay, I'll admit, SOME rats are okay.
>explicitly NOT for
Maybe explicitly isn’t the best word choice when you’re also mentioning tools. We do use gimmicky hooked blades for “unzipping” a deer carcass.
>hooked blades
How is a boline not like a fishing hook? Which is more like a raptor claw?
4 months ago
Anonymous
4 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/Ghi65WA.jpg
Or
These are both blades, albeit the one on top is rather dull. Claws are oval in cross-section and the bottom is not sharp, only the point. Literally hook-shaped. This is a very poorly designed tool for cutting. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Or
4 months ago
Anonymous
>dig deeper
Ironic coming from a guy criticizing fossil interpretations he doesn't understand because all he does is fap to Allosaurus all day.
Why do you have to be like this? Do you have a superiority complex or something? Why do you think I wouldn't be perfectly capable of deciding how far into such a topic I want to delve on my own? Why do you assume I have a surface-level understand, and that you're "teaching" me? These are rhetorical questions, I don't actually want you to respond here. Just think about it, dude.
He does. Also he's a drunk.
4702791
Wew lad, so glad paleoprostitute got to troll the discussion so she gets attention. No (You) though.
I would teach you to spell "theropods" but then I would have a harder time searching for your posts in the archives.
Don't respond to it. It just makes it troll harder.
[...]
[...]
of course "therapod" is a typo I purposefully and regularly introduced prior to 2015 to see if anyone noticed. The first few times were mistakes, I suck at spelling. But since nobody mentioned it I sorta ran with it.
I have purposely trained him wrong, as a joke.
Ah the puppet master at work lol. Your life is an animu.
>This is like the allosaurus face biting thing.
some things I never tell you because I'm interested to see if you learn them on your own.
Look at all the interesting velociraptor factoids I didn't shove in anon's face this thread. Or dental comparisons of various unrelated herbivores. I'm curious if he learns of his mistakes on his own.
>Or dental comparisons of various unrelated herbivores
Honestly I don't think you understand these. Your comments on anything other than Theropods are sus as frick.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The one you're arguing with is "paleoNPC". He's the old paleontologist. He likes to doublespace and aggressively argue while drunk.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Longisquama died on top of the same plant every time.
You're a complete idiot. There is only ONE Psittacosaur ever found with "quills" and even mainstream paleontologists have noted that this is odd since other Psittacosaurs have been found with integument but no quills. And there is only ONE Longisquama fossil that actually features an animal. The rest are just fronds of what are pretty obviously just plants. You are correct that this constant, insistent portrayal of Ceratopsians as omnivores is fricking stupid.
4 months ago
Anonymous
not to mention hadrosaur teeth are quite different from the rest of dinosauria, being very specialized for battery chewing, while ceratopsians had a much more basal and less complicated method of mastication
4 months ago
Anonymous
>hadrosaur teeth are quite different from the rest of dinosauria, being very specialized for battery chewing,
you've literally never seen a hadrosaur tooth, have you?
4 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/pvvngCG.jpg
>while ceratopsians had a much more basal and less complicated method of mastication
or none at all.
using big words and latin binomials or museum specimen numbers makes a person look smart for about 5 seconds until they manage to prove they know the jargon but don't understand the meaning. It's funny, but not in a lol sort of way. More of a "that person is really interested in the topic but too lazy to learn the basics" sort of way. Autism is funny because it produces paradoxical results. The guy that knows everything there is to know about polishing intake manifold ports but doesn't know how to drive sort of funny. The guy that can name every part of a camera but never takes any pictures sort of way. Not laugh out loud funny, just an interesting and amusing paradox.
He's correct about this though. Although, if you want to be a reddit pedant, technically Hadrosaurs "sliced" their food rather than "chewed" it, but thank god I'm not a reddit pedant and I typically just say chew.
https://i.imgur.com/XJlE3Il.png
[...]
[...]
Uhh... I think this is a bit of an over-reaction to my posts. I don't frequent Wauf as much as some of the people itt so I'm not sure what combination of factors is involved here: >Do you think I'm the paleoschizo? >Are some of these posts paleoschizo? I genuinely can't tell, haven't built up that pattern recognition well enough yet >My suggestions being "I'm right you're wrong" instead of "I think this, I think it's reasonable" >Black person Black person Black person idk
I just think it's a very reasonable position to suggest this. Also with regards to their chewing mechanisms, no, they literally DO have a basal method thereof, ceratopsians are oddly basal in a lot of ways, despite their obvious and prominent derived features. Hadrosaurs especially really do have very derived chewing mechanisms comparatively and are not a good analogy.
I'm "paleoschizo". You can always tell when I'm posting because I post images and links to back up my claims and when pressed if I didn't, I'll do it in response. I don't believe in just making shit up. If I have my own pet theories, I couch them in exactly those terms. I'm honest. That's precisely what pisses everyone off. Not just here, but in mainstream academia. Modern science is predicated on spreading bullshit to advance your career. While I sometimes work in science-adjacent fields, I always make sure to avoid anything too "mainstream" so I don't have to put up with that shit. Only amateur scientists ever tell the truth about their field because their paycheck doesn't depend on lying to advance various agendas. That's the great heresy of our age.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>while ceratopsians had a much more basal and less complicated method of mastication
or none at all.
using big words and latin binomials or museum specimen numbers makes a person look smart for about 5 seconds until they manage to prove they know the jargon but don't understand the meaning. It's funny, but not in a lol sort of way. More of a "that person is really interested in the topic but too lazy to learn the basics" sort of way. Autism is funny because it produces paradoxical results. The guy that knows everything there is to know about polishing intake manifold ports but doesn't know how to drive sort of funny. The guy that can name every part of a camera but never takes any pictures sort of way. Not laugh out loud funny, just an interesting and amusing paradox.
They jabbed it right in the neck of prey to puncture either the jugular or windpipe. Think like a fang on their foot.
This recent "pinning down" bullshit is so fricking dumb since we have a famous fossil of them using it on the throat. Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration; it was a meat hook plunged into the neck.
I see this exchange as equivalent to this video
if the warthog got a hold of the leopard in its jaws and they died like that. Look at the damage the leoopard did with its hind paws. Those claws aren't even as sharp as the ones on its forelimbs since they're used to kick off the ground when they sprint and they still ripped the warthogs thighs and stomach open. The protoceratops would have been losing blood at an insane pace had the raptor been successful and avoided the beak.
Sure MPC-D 100/25 was in a shitty situation, but I don't think it's coincidence that it's toe claw managed to hook right into MPC-D 100/512's neck during the struggle, particularly when that's the most lethal place on the body to stab into.
Attacking the neck with the toe claw from above, behind, or even the side seems like the best way for a Velociraptor to take down a Protoceratops, again like a sort of foot-fang, and the fact that MPC-D 100/25 actually did this, even under unfavorable circumstances, supports this.
>Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration
[...] >Yes.
this is unknown.
the bone is not the claw. It may have been serrated. It was certainly much larger than the bone indicates.
[...] >I don't know enough about Proceratops neck mobility to say
velociraptor had one foot in its belly, the other below the neck.
One arm was in its mouth, and the other was behind the frill in the neck.
two or three of these were potentially lethal.
The only ones I've seen depicting a claw below the belly are bad reconstructions; MPC-D 100/25 had it's left claw in the neck, and it's right claw was against the ground.
Did you?
I posted photos of the actual fossil, and you can account for both of MPC-D 100/25's legs in the photo on the left. Again, the only examples I've seen of the legs not in this position are reconstructions depicting a complete frill for MPC-D 100/512.
>They jabbed it right in the neck of prey to puncture either the jugular or windpipe. Think like a fang on their foot.
Interesting hypothesis, lets talk about this. >Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration; it was a meat hook...
Yes. >This recent "pinning down" bullshit is so fricking dumb since we have a famous fossil of them using it on the throat.
Take any predator/prey interaction inference you make from MPC-D 100/512, MPC-D 100/25 (the "fighting dinosaurs" fossil, the proceratops specimen and the velociraptor specimen respectively), with a spoon full of salt. Things are obviously not going as MPC-D 100/25 intended them to go.
Is it possible that Velociraptors kicked under the frills of Proceratops to stab them in the jugular with their sickle claw? Sure. Is the fact that MPC-D 100/25 is doing this to MPC-D 100/512 evidence that this was their preferred attack mode? No, MPC-D 100/25 is laying on its side and has been restrained by MPC-D 100/512. This is a very dangerous position for a predator to be in (as evidenced by the fact that MPC-D 100/25 fricking died like this). As a fast moving carnivore, the safety of a Velociraptor's lower leg is probably once of his primary concerns any time he's in conflict with an animal large enough to hurt him. Anything that happens to him that threatens his mobility threatens his life. I could see him attacking the neck of a prey item with his claws, if he can do it in such a way that the prey item cannot pinch restrain his leg and harm him. I don't know enough about Proceratops neck mobility to say that this means he couldn't necessarily attack the back or sides of the neck from above and behind, but he's certainly not going to assume the motherfricking blowjobjutsu ground guard or half guard (like MPC-D 100/25) as an attack strategy. These animals are in an equal struggle and only idiots end up in an equal struggle, a predator's job is to make everything as unequal as possible to control your risk.
>Yes.
this is unknown.
the bone is not the claw. It may have been serrated. It was certainly much larger than the bone indicates.
>They jabbed it right in the neck of prey to puncture either the jugular or windpipe. Think like a fang on their foot.
Interesting hypothesis, lets talk about this. >Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration; it was a meat hook...
Yes. >This recent "pinning down" bullshit is so fricking dumb since we have a famous fossil of them using it on the throat.
Take any predator/prey interaction inference you make from MPC-D 100/512, MPC-D 100/25 (the "fighting dinosaurs" fossil, the proceratops specimen and the velociraptor specimen respectively), with a spoon full of salt. Things are obviously not going as MPC-D 100/25 intended them to go.
Is it possible that Velociraptors kicked under the frills of Proceratops to stab them in the jugular with their sickle claw? Sure. Is the fact that MPC-D 100/25 is doing this to MPC-D 100/512 evidence that this was their preferred attack mode? No, MPC-D 100/25 is laying on its side and has been restrained by MPC-D 100/512. This is a very dangerous position for a predator to be in (as evidenced by the fact that MPC-D 100/25 fricking died like this). As a fast moving carnivore, the safety of a Velociraptor's lower leg is probably once of his primary concerns any time he's in conflict with an animal large enough to hurt him. Anything that happens to him that threatens his mobility threatens his life. I could see him attacking the neck of a prey item with his claws, if he can do it in such a way that the prey item cannot pinch restrain his leg and harm him. I don't know enough about Proceratops neck mobility to say that this means he couldn't necessarily attack the back or sides of the neck from above and behind, but he's certainly not going to assume the motherfricking blowjobjutsu ground guard or half guard (like MPC-D 100/25) as an attack strategy. These animals are in an equal struggle and only idiots end up in an equal struggle, a predator's job is to make everything as unequal as possible to control your risk.
>I don't know enough about Proceratops neck mobility to say
velociraptor had one foot in its belly, the other below the neck.
One arm was in its mouth, and the other was behind the frill in the neck.
>the bone is not the claw.
Obviously. >It may have been serrated.
Is there a single vertebrate with serrated claws? I know a couple invertebrates, but I'm not aware of any vertebrates.
>Is there a single vertebrate with serrated claws?
several but I'd have to go to archives to find references. We've had this thread at least a dozen times and it's not easy to keep track of sources and esoterica posted over the years.
not that it matters since once I post it again everyone will say, "that's interesting," and then a year later be asking the exact same questions again.
>not that it matters since once I post it again everyone will say, "that's interesting," and then a year later be asking the exact same questions again.
Obviously, this place does have a fair amount of turnover and my memory of minutiae isn't any better than yours. If that's your barrier to entry on this question, I hope you're hanging in there alright because that doesn't seem to have ever stopped you in the past.
Anyways, the only thing I could find that some people call serrated is the pectinate claw of certain birds of prey (like barn owls), though as you can see, this isn't exactly a flesh cutter as much as it is a multitool.
>this place does have a fair amount of turnover
lol
the only thing I could find that some people call serrated is the pectinate claw of certain birds of prey (like barn owls), though as you can see, this isn't exactly a flesh cutter as much as it is a multitool.
last time I found a much better examination of serrations in predator claws, might have been a youtube paleontologist. I was drunk though and I'll have to repeat the search to hunt it down.
though again, bears, cats, and birds of prey all slash flesh without serrated claws.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You and I are here forever, but some people go and some people replace them.
I'm not going to deny that overcoming the young's modulus of flesh opens a cut, the arguments are just becoming too reductionist, I think the "hooked claws aren't flesh cutters" argument was initially aimed at the popular impression of dromeosaurs kicking at unengaged prey like a Bond villain with a shoe knife (as in Dr, Grant's 7 foot turkey speech). Especially since we're not talking about a 50 kg cat bullying a 25 kg pig, but a 20 kg animal attacking a 100 kg one.
Obviously a claw that hooks into flesh will tear it with concerted effort, you can rip flesh with your blunt human fingers, never mind something with a sharp claw, but do they have to restrain and subdue the animals before cutting it open with your claws, and if they do, how are they doing so?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah I think the idea of raptors running up on prey and then disemboweling it with some well placed kicks before backing off is a bit absurd.
and to be fair that's exactly the scenario that was examined and deboonked by various mythbuster type films. Though they ignore the fact that an animal can exert forces well in excess of its own body weight by say, kicking against momentum or digging in and driving the foot down hard.
What seems a lot more likely is as we both said, anchoring onto or climbing up the side of the animal and kicking downward repeatedly. Even then the 'strategy' may not be disembowelment, rather that might just be something that happens sometimes as it does with large cats and bears. Not really what they're going for, but not a bad outcome for them when it happens. I'd guess it's more of a side effect of climbing up the animal, as often happens with lions and their prey.
either way, I sincerely doubt they employed one single strategy in every situation, and the one good fossil we have of one hunting shows the animal engaged with all of its limbs, probably using the tail and head to counterbalance. If anything I'd expect the head to be engaged in most cases as well since it provides the firmest anchor for gripping and ripping. The toe claw would seem to be just one of several tools in the kit, though if they climbed animals it could certainly do some damage on the way up. Probably capable of spilling the guts of the prey, though that's not always the best way to immobilize an animal quickly.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>that's not always the best way to immobilize an animal quickly.
this is a favored method among canids that usually disembowel ungulates using perineal ripping. They often wind up chasing an animal for miles before shock and blood loss down the animal to the point where they can begin to eat it. Raptors are certainly built for miles of running, but that's not a common strategy among hypercarnivores.
komodo dragon strategy might work better, just injure the animal and wait a few days, but that seems a bit sluggish and lazy for something built like a raptor.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>but that seems a bit sluggish and lazy for something built like a raptor.
Given that not even Komodo dragons hunt like that I'd say so
4 months ago
Anonymous
Here's the problem with the raptor toe knife theory in a nutshell: geometry. It is not unknown what the ideal shapes are for tools. A recurved blade is best for slashing. That's why a katana is this shape. A straight sword can also slash, but is less efficient at it. But we have a word for a NON-blade shaped implement that is DEcurved and ends in a mostly rounded cross section sharp point. It's called a hook. And and can you guess what it's for? Can you guess what it's explicitly NOT for?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>explicitly NOT for
Maybe explicitly isn’t the best word choice when you’re also mentioning tools. We do use gimmicky hooked blades for “unzipping” a deer carcass.
I'm heading off to a party, so if I find the reference I'm remembering- and I remembered it correctly- it will probably be tomorrow or longer.
iirc I was just hunting info on length of keratinous claws compared to the bone of the ungual, and encountered a blog or video that also discussed serrations in extant predators. It's in the archives I suppose, and that might be the easiest way to find it.
I'll look for it later if you don't want to. It's not important I don't think. Enjoy your evening.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Enjoy your evening.
Likewise.
4 months ago
Anonymous
What a trip from this post on. Sometimes I think threads are doing something interesting and are on a productive track and then I go away for a day and come back to a housefire.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>on a productive track
not only has every idea itt except one been published before, but all of them except one have been posted in previous versions of this thread before. If you check archives you'll see we have this exact same thread once a month.
the only new idea to come out of this hot mess is that the claw evolved to sell toys millions of years in the future. Which is interesting in an existential sort of way. Not sure how to profit off the idea though.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Obviously not productive as in creating something new or pushing the boundaries of science, but at least a decent informative thread.
Maybe it feels like groundhog day for you, but while there's been posts here about this in the past that had more or less successful discussion (mostly less), the one from the 22nd of December that you've screenshotted the archive search for literally had 2 frog pics and a "bump" as the only three replies, this hardly like /k/ where the shills will repost, post for post, threads from as little as a week before and then delete it when someone notices.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>literally had 2 frog pics and a "bump" as the only three replies
because these threads die when I ignore them
and the paleoschizo dies inside when I ignore him.
This isn't some new huge crowd of people discussing an interesting topic. It's the same 3 people rehashing the same shit they've been talking about for literal decades.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>because these threads die when I ignore them
Honestly this thread was doing fine until you two started your gay little dance
4 months ago
Anonymous
He was participating before the gay dance started.
4 months ago
Anonymous
If we want a hypothesis that pleases everyone, I suggest as follows:
Protoceratops was fond of eating a certain type of grass that looks a lot like quills. Velociraptor grew quills on its arms from specialized quill knobs. Those quills looked like the grass that Protoceratops liked to eat. Velociraptor would hide in the quill grass with just its arms exposed, waving them lasciviously until Protoceratops took the bait and chomped down on the quill arm. Then Velociraptor would leap out of the quill grass and tickle the Protoceratops mercilessly with its specialized tickling claws until it finally yelled "I submit!" and they'd both have a good laugh and enjoy a picnic of fresh quill grass because before the flood God didn't let dinosaurs eat each other. Sadly the Protoceratops had tuberculosis and died on top of his quill grass. None of them had feathers or anything like feathers, and they're only chinese fossils by some accident of modern conquest so you can believe they're real even if other chinese fossils are obvious fakes.
The End.
not that it matters, since serrations certainly aren't required to slice flesh. Large cats and birds of prey shred meat and skin without serrated claws.
so the whole question is an aside based on a false premise. It's not relevant at all unless you take seriously the mythbusters style crap videos saying raptor claws can't tear flesh.
I can literally not imagine a more poorly designed killing strategy.
>Think like a fang on their foot.
Fangs are not this curved.
Protoceratops is the predator in that example, fwiw
Not the predator, but it IS winning. Or was, until they were both buried in a sandfall.
why are dino feet so erotic
Because you're a featherhomosexual.
https://i.imgur.com/GtMgplg.jpg
Sure MPC-D 100/25 was in a shitty situation, but I don't think it's coincidence that it's toe claw managed to hook right into MPC-D 100/512's neck during the struggle, particularly when that's the most lethal place on the body to stab into.
Attacking the neck with the toe claw from above, behind, or even the side seems like the best way for a Velociraptor to take down a Protoceratops, again like a sort of foot-fang, and the fact that MPC-D 100/25 actually did this, even under unfavorable circumstances, supports this.
[...]
The only ones I've seen depicting a claw below the belly are bad reconstructions; MPC-D 100/25 had it's left claw in the neck, and it's right claw was against the ground.
>but I don't think it's coincidence that it's toe claw managed to hook right into MPC-D 100/512's neck during the struggle
You don't think it had anything to do with the raptor trying to kick the Protoceratops' head off of its arm (and failing)? This raptor isn't hunting the Protoceratops, like I said in the other thread. It's trying to fight it off and failing fricking miserably. You don't hunt prey on your back.
https://i.imgur.com/SEvmyAX.jpg
not that it matters, since serrations certainly aren't required to slice flesh. Large cats and birds of prey shred meat and skin without serrated claws.
so the whole question is an aside based on a false premise. It's not relevant at all unless you take seriously the mythbusters style crap videos saying raptor claws can't tear flesh.
>mythbusters style crap videos >PHYSICS IS WRONG! JURASSIC PARK IS RIGHT!
Oh boy. This from the guy saying that birds of prey and cats are "slicing" their prey with their claws. Have you never seen an eagle eat? They're not butchering hogs into select cuts before dining, you moron. Kind of weird to be the one on the opposite side of Jurassic Park for a change. I'm not surprised it's dealing with theropods since theropodgays will make up an entire fanfiction canon about the giant chickens. Really weird you're trying to claim that claws of living animals that are well known to be used for restraining prey are actually for tearing them up instead. Also, egrets kill with their beaks, not their feet.
https://i.imgur.com/5mm7HFE.jpg
Quick somebody tell these wolves that this bison is too big for them.
>Pack hunting again
Why is this hard for you to grasp? Packs can hunt larger prey. Solitary animals tend not to (not successfully anyway).
>You don't hunt prey on your back.
That's literally what the leopard in
Y'all act like these animals didn't scrap man.
[...]
I see this exchange as equivalent to this video
if the warthog got a hold of the leopard in its jaws and they died like that. Look at the damage the leoopard did with its hind paws. Those claws aren't even as sharp as the ones on its forelimbs since they're used to kick off the ground when they sprint and they still ripped the warthogs thighs and stomach open. The protoceratops would have been losing blood at an insane pace had the raptor been successful and avoided the beak.
is doing. Its not farfetched to believe that raptors like MPC-D 100/25 would have employed similar strategies of latching onto and eviscerating their prey like every other predator ever since the development of quadrupedal herbivores 298 million years ago. Arguing "slicing" vs "restraining" is just semantics. The main killing action birds of prey employ when hunting larger animals is to hold on while the struggles of said animal against their talons opens up the wounds further. They eventually bleed to death or become catatonic due to the sheer amount of pain inflicted. Remember that dromaeosaurs have an entire mouth full of teeth, two forelimbs with claws that never touch the ground and are therefore never dulled, and powerful legs with two gigantic sickle shaped claws that also never touch the ground. Wolves take down bison with nothing but their mouthful of teeth. Big cats are dromaeosaurs' only analogue in terms of volume of weapons. These things were absurdly deadly. Dinosaurs are still the most physically advanced vertebrates to ever roam this earth.
>that never touch the ground and are therefore never dulled
not how claws work. They grow continuously, so if you're not grinding them down on something they'll eventually reach the ground.
also grinding them down sharpens them.
>but that seems a bit sluggish and lazy for something built like a raptor.
Given that not even Komodo dragons hunt like that I'd say so
>not even Komodo dragons hunt like that
all predators hunt like that. Maybe not on purpose, certainly not all the time, but they all do it. Komodo dragons do it more often than faster mammalian and avian carnivores.
>all predators hunt like that
The chances of finding injured prey days after the initial attack without it already being cleaned up by other predators is pretty slim
>The chances of finding injured prey days after the initial attack without it already being cleaned up by other predators is pretty slim
This. I think the only reason it kind of works for komodos is because they're the only large predators on their island.
4 months ago
Anonymous
It probably works for Komodos even less than just about any other predator since there's so many in such a small area. Literally any scent of blood and they start arriving in numbers within a minute or two, by the time the original Komodo who injured the prey shows up its probably already been completely consumed
4 months ago
Anonymous
the original attacker is going to be first on that blood trail
not that it matters since they feed according to social hierarchy based on size. So it's not really a matter of who gets there first. A dragon could make a clean kill and still not end up getting any of it.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>the original attacker is going to be first on that blood trail
Not if its been days since the initial attack like you say >A dragon could make a clean kill and still not end up getting any of it.
Any individual large enough to subdue a prey animal like a deer is going to be big enough to hold its own in contesting the meal
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Not if its been days since the initial attack like you say
what happened to the smell of blood attracting animals from all around within minutes?
does that magically not include the animal that drew the blood in the first place?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>what happened to the smell of blood attracting animals from all around within minutes?
what happened is you apparently believed the old timey meme of Komodos waiting for days for prey to keel over >does that magically not include the animal that drew the blood in the first place?
yes, it would. The point is not many predators are going to be able to re-acquire prey they injured days earlier unless they got insanely lucky
4 months ago
Anonymous
>what happened is you apparently believed the old timey meme of Komodos waiting for days for prey to keel over
it's hard to keep up, first they had a bite that induces sepsis, then they had a venomous bite.
both were attempts at explaining why they attacked animals just to let them wander off and die later.
later scientists simply denied the behavior, negating the need for an explanation.
whatever the truth, all predators lose prey sometimes. Some predators release prey on purpose. I doubt velociraptor or deinonychus was letting prey go on purpose, but it would tend to explain how a murder chicken could go about killing animals the size of cows or pigs.
And they're not by any means the only example among dinosaurs that have been suggested to do this. But weirder ideas have been floated, and it's hard to say for sure which ones are right, if any of them. >The point is not many predators are going to be able to re-acquire prey they injured days earlier unless they got insanely lucky
true, unless they're territorial, or social, or determined trackers.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>both were attempts at explaining why they attacked animals just to let them wander off and die later.
The septic bite theory was not based observations of Komodo dragons hunting typical prey, just stories from locals of them eating domestic water buffalo which usually don’t attempt to flee in the first place. There were no observations of dragons biting prey and then catching it again days later because that doesn’t happen. For starters even with the knowledge that they have true venom, that’s still not how they hunt since their venom is too weak to incapacitate prey to begin with >Some predators release prey on purpose
Sure, but not for days. That would be something like a great white releasing a seal for a few minutes to bleed out >true, unless they're territorial, or social, or determined trackers
This is not the case for animals like this either
>Arguing "slicing" vs "restraining" is just semantics.
Congratulations on the most moronic post in the thread. Slicing and grabbing are totally different things. Anyone that has been fishing has sliced themselves with a hook at least once. Is that what hooks were designed for?
>They jabbed it right in the neck of prey to puncture either the jugular or windpipe. Think like a fang on their foot.
Interesting hypothesis, lets talk about this. >Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration; it was a meat hook...
Yes. >This recent "pinning down" bullshit is so fricking dumb since we have a famous fossil of them using it on the throat.
Take any predator/prey interaction inference you make from MPC-D 100/512, MPC-D 100/25 (the "fighting dinosaurs" fossil, the proceratops specimen and the velociraptor specimen respectively), with a spoon full of salt. Things are obviously not going as MPC-D 100/25 intended them to go.
Is it possible that Velociraptors kicked under the frills of Proceratops to stab them in the jugular with their sickle claw? Sure. Is the fact that MPC-D 100/25 is doing this to MPC-D 100/512 evidence that this was their preferred attack mode? No, MPC-D 100/25 is laying on its side and has been restrained by MPC-D 100/512. This is a very dangerous position for a predator to be in (as evidenced by the fact that MPC-D 100/25 fricking died like this). As a fast moving carnivore, the safety of a Velociraptor's lower leg is probably once of his primary concerns any time he's in conflict with an animal large enough to hurt him. Anything that happens to him that threatens his mobility threatens his life. I could see him attacking the neck of a prey item with his claws, if he can do it in such a way that the prey item cannot pinch restrain his leg and harm him. I don't know enough about Proceratops neck mobility to say that this means he couldn't necessarily attack the back or sides of the neck from above and behind, but he's certainly not going to assume the motherfricking blowjobjutsu ground guard or half guard (like MPC-D 100/25) as an attack strategy. These animals are in an equal struggle and only idiots end up in an equal struggle, a predator's job is to make everything as unequal as possible to control your risk.
When I pin my dog down while we're wrestling, it will kick and scratch at me from underneath with its foot claws. If we got fossilized together, it could make some alien in 50 million years say that dogs used their hind feet as weapons when hunting prey.
But we know that is not something wolves do in the wild.
To rely entirely on an exceptional fossil to reconstruct the hunting methods of the animals is going too far.
>To rely entirely on an exceptional fossil to reconstruct the hunting methods of the animals is going too far.
which is why the thread exists.
scientists aren't confident relying on a single fossil that could indicate a lot of different scenarios. So they posit other ideas, like climbing/perching, climbing other animals, anchoring to other animals, raking the flanks of animals, holding small animals down, stuff like that. And unsurprisingly their interpretations of the organ fit their prior views on the animal. People like Feduccia and Paul and Chatterjee who see the animals as a type of bird tend to interpret the claw as useful for climbing trees and gripping branches. People that see the animal as a flesh grazer or parasite on living prey see the claw as useful for anchoring to animal skin. People who see the animal as a social hunter see the claw as useful for causing bleeding wounds or disembowelment.
all we know for a fact is that velociraptor very certainly ate protoceratops, and deinoneichus very certainly ate tenontosaurus and other deinonychus. How they accomplished this exactly is unknown. But speculations based on similar modern animals is easy enough.
Wauf is fun for reviewing this sort of stuff because the board represents the general public's ideas about stuff. Or at least the very autistic public's ideas.
For example the idea that dogs don't use their hind claws to kill. They may not usually use them, but that doesn't mean they never use them.
or the idea that the claw was flat on the underside or unserrated. These things aren't known.
or the idea that a claw that's flat on the underside or unserrated can't rip flesh. Scientists know that's not true.
or the idea that dromaeosaurs were too light to slash flesh with their claws. Scientists know this to be false right off the bat.
the other misconception is that the various interpretations are mutually exclusive. Just because a dog CAN use its hind claws to kill animals doesn't negate other uses such as digging or kicking dirt or traction when running or whatever. Just because a velociraptor CAN use its hind claws for gripping branches doesn't necessarily mean it didn't also use them to rake the flesh or prey, or climb large animals, or whatever.
Part of deboonking the mutual exclusion fallacy in the public mind is suggesting alternatives that are perhaps more or less likely than the public view. But that just means once the public is convinced that velociraptor claws CAN'T penetrate flesh, scientists are going to step in and say they could. This is a conversation science has with itself, and the autistic public that wants firm, dichotomous answers will find it frustrating because they want solid interpretations that exclude all alternatives. Which of course don't really exist in nature. Whatever the public thinks about nature, it is almost always either wrong or incomplete in scope. And that's fine. Nuance is lost on most people, including most people here. The idea that things can be more than one way at any given time is unsettling. Most people are simply not wired to approach reality from a state of mental uncertainty.
Ultimately the irritating thing about this thread to the participants is that the claw was almost certainly used for EVERY SINGLE BEHAVIOR listed in the thread (with the exception of selling future toys) as well as a few uses that haven't been listed (grooming, running in loose soil, roasting marshmallows over a campfire).
the question isn't what the animal used the organ for, it's what they used it for most often. And that remains unknown. That it had multiple uses is just assumed by anyone that looks at animals for more than five minutes.
dog hindclaws are perhaps not normally used to disembowel prey, but that certainly doesn't mean they can't disembowel prey, or that they never have or never will disembowel prey.
organs get used for pretty much anything they are capable of at some point or other in the millions of years they exist. Even if just by accident. Animals don't run around thinking "I can't use my hindclaws to kill things." They just try to kill things in any way they can, and sometimes that's going to include using hindclaws. Or elbows or whatever. Stuff happens, organs get used in lots of interesting ways.
This goes into the biggest problem the autistic public has: Teleology in biology
what was it USED for? What was its USE?
This is a teleological question, and while it is one scientists ask, we don't ask it rigorously. That's more of a public method of thought. Organs exist and find a use afterwards. Usually a lot of uses. The animal used it for some things, and those things were helpful enough to preserve the organ for future generations, but they weren't some firm teleological category. Organs that persist and spread apparently get used, and often for multiple purposes, but those purposes aren't law. The organ doesn't have a single use, and it won't go away just because that single imagined use is no longer needed. Usually a seemingly useless organ is just repurposed for some other new uses instead of going away. Because animals use whatever they have for whatever they can.
>Usually a seemingly useless organ is just repurposed for some other new uses instead of going away. Because animals use whatever they have for whatever they can.
this also implies that the organ may have had no particular use at all.
this doesn't sit well with adaptationists, but evolution is a process, not a state. Animals often get caught with relatively pointless organs that haven't yet gone away. Over a long enough time span animals will collect enough of these organs (become specialized, or derived) to the point that the animal itself goes extinct for lack of use of their specialized organs and lack of ability to change them.
This is the direct opposite of adaptation, and it doesn't sit well with those that only have a teleological, adaptationist understanding of nature.
Ultimately the idea that the claw had multiple uses, and maybe no use at all, doesn't fit the moron-tier console wars mindset of this board or the people discussing dinosaurs. People that build their entire personality around knowing a thing and defending it are always going to wind up fricked by nature because nature doesn't care what you think you know, or how strongly you feel about it. It's busy doing everything at once, and nothing in particular. Including spawning monkeys that will view it from different angles and then argue that their view is the only correct one.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>spawning monkeys that will view it from different angles and then argue that their view is the only correct one.
scientists very carefully avoid this.
I don't believe raptors used their claws primarily for climbing trees, but I certainly don't think the idea is moronic. It almost certainly happened at some point, probably lots of times. Just because I don't consider it the best or most likely use doesn't mean someone suggesting it is wrong or stupid. It would be wrong and stupid to discount the idea.
Just like it's wrong and stupid to say raptor claws COULDN'T tear flesh. Of course they could, it's just a question of how often they did.
even the flying emu kick attributed to jurassic park isn't entirely impossible, it's just a question of whether or not it happened often. It almost certainly happened sometimes, even if by accident.
The need to say these things are IMPOSSIBLE indicates a dogmatic defense of an idea against all others because the person holding the idea has built their personality around it. This is funny, adorable, and sad all at the same time. But ultimately brings us no closer to knowing a thing than when we started. Actual "gotcha" moments in science where a thing is suddenly and irrefutably proven are extremely rare. It's mostly just a discussion of what's possible. And a lot of stuff is possible.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>a lot of stuff is possible.
almost every use suggested itt is possible. Several of them are undeniable.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>almost every use suggested itt is possible. Several of them are undeniable.
and in the back of every scientist's mind is the default option, the null hypothesis-
Large talons with "locking" mechanism allowed them to climb onto and subdue prey. Small wings on the arms helped them keep balance by pushing against the air. From there raptors would begin to consume their prey alive in a similar manner to their modern descendants.
There's a few reasons why this works >every instinct tells prey not to lie down on the ground when being attacked >its hard for herbivorous quadrupeds with large guts to roll onto their backs and dislodge predators, doubly so given the high arched backs of most ornithischian dinosaurs >with enough mass, falling onto the ground (even from a standing position) can be gravely injuring. Even something the size of a cow has to lie down carefully, and such care is impossible when being attacked. >even if they do manage to dislodge the predator, its light enough to take no damage from a very telegraphed fall and just hop right back on
There's a few reasons why this works >every instinct tells prey not to lie down on the ground when being attacked >its hard for herbivorous quadrupeds with large guts to roll onto their backs and dislodge predators, doubly so given the high arched backs of most ornithischian dinosaurs >with enough mass, falling onto the ground (even from a standing position) can be gravely injuring. Even something the size of a cow has to lie down carefully, and such care is impossible when being attacked. >even if they do manage to dislodge the predator, its light enough to take no damage from a very telegraphed fall and just hop right back on
You realize both of these animals, fly, right?
https://i.imgur.com/TTrMtLX.jpg
Let's see how modern predators with sickle shaped claws hunt
oh... >iTs tOo bIG
Is there a difference, functionally, between flying and being able to jump 7+ feet in the air while also having small wings to control and soften your fall? Don't be daft. I don't know why you keep on bringing up this >solitary thing whenever it is known, known that certain species of dromaeosaurs like deinonychus lived in family units, evidenced by multiple individuals of varying life stages being found at the same sites. There's also evidence of them consuming prey too large to take down on their own. Here's the paper that contains these findings.
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10172318
The paleontologists in this paper however, do not go as far as asserting these animals hunted in packs due to a difference between the analyses of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the teeth of adults and juveniles, which could indicate a different diet. Isotope analysis is extremely inconsistent though. You can find isotope analyses with results that could be interpreted to show that dinosaurs existed as little as 10,000 years ago. While this is obviously false it proves the unreliability of this method. The sample size is also incredibly small. Five adult and juvenile teeth respectively which could have come from only two individuals. Its impossible to know. Unknown behaviors like adults pre-chewing the food could even skew these results. Fact of the matter is they lived together. Deal with it.
the problem with even the family unit idea is that most or all of the deinonychus found in tenontosaurus death assemblages were cannibalized. They ate each other.
this is more like crocodile behavior, where several animals might gather at a large kill, but they're also just fine with killing and eating each other as well.
Absolutely. The difference is a flying animal can harass a terrestrial animal and escape back into the sky beyond retaliation. A jumping animal cannot. They are totally different strategies. Birds use these strategies specifically because they've unlocked the tool of flight. No non-flying animal would fricking dare unless they had some otherwise suitable strategy to feed on something 10x their size.
Idnt that a kikapoo or some sort? I believe they are near flightless birds and have a hilarious mating ritual. Didn't know they were fans of mutton. Tip top bird, Cheery o
This. Plenty of modern birds that use their feet to rake or knead and massage or drum at the other’s gonads when they’re fricking. Part of that often just looks like the consequences of getting a good grip to get the butthole lined up, other times it looks more like a cat makin biscuits or the bird doing cute little tippy taps with just its toes. Depends on species, but there’s a surprising variety of different behaviors.
>attacked by gigantic theropod >it doesn't tear you to shreds or eat you whole >it just picks you up with its mouth and throws you at the ground >over and over you smash into the ground while the superpredator studiously watches how many times you bounce >you lose track of how may distinct surfaces the animal slams you at and you feel every single bone in your body turned into gravel as you fade into darkness
This is unironically a good point and goes back to the theory that some dinosaurs may actually be birds like Ornithomimosaurs and Oviraptorosaurs.
https://i.imgur.com/U2CI2bn.jpg
Congrats this is now a bird
Concavenator only has scales. This is what happens when you listen to "muh quill knobs" bullshit.
>No impressions of any kind of integument were found near the arm, although extensive scale impressions were preserved on other portions of the body, including broad, rectangular scales on the underside of the tail, bird-like scutes on the feet, and plantar pads on the undersides of the feet.
I posted it as funbait and feathergays still failed.
>posts disinfo
So the bones have evidence of an animal with feathers and scales and there are no feathers because you say “muh” before the evidence… ok.
Why does it hurt you to admit that they were just like real animals
A keel
A pygostyle
A tarsometatarsus
A tibiotarsus
>A keel
Moa are dinosaurs >A pygostyle
Makes Archaeopteryx a dinosaur despite not lacking a sternum entirly like moa >A tarsometatarsus
T.rex is a bird >A tibiotarsus
Heterodontosaurus is a bird
This is unironically a good point and goes back to the theory that some dinosaurs may actually be birds like Ornithomimosaurs and Oviraptorosaurs.
[...]
Concavenator only has scales. This is what happens when you listen to "muh quill knobs" bullshit.
>No impressions of any kind of integument were found near the arm, although extensive scale impressions were preserved on other portions of the body, including broad, rectangular scales on the underside of the tail, bird-like scutes on the feet, and plantar pads on the undersides of the feet.
I posted it as funbait and feathergays still failed.
if you actually read the papers about conc youd know the latest consesus is that the arm bones were warped during preservatiuon and the latest reconstructions put the quill knobs exaxtlty where quill knobs ould have been and regardless of that see above. By your own sides arguments the clearly feathered Archaeopteryx would be a dinosaur...
Lol you idiot. That only makes "muh quill knobs" an even MORE untenable position, because we know for a fricking FACT that concavenator had scales on its body. Additionally, the few dinosaurs that HAD feathers like Ornithomimosaurs DO NOT HAVE scales on the undersides of their tails. That's a very strong indicator Concavenator had zero feathers. Yet it still has "quill knobs". It's almost like "quill knobs" don't mean shit.
>posts disinfo
So the bones have evidence of an animal with feathers and scales and there are no feathers because you say “muh” before the evidence… ok.
Why does it hurt you to admit that they were just like real animals
Why do you have to get drunk and troll online. Get your drinking habit under control.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>having scales on its body precludes feathers on its arms
4 months ago
Anonymous
You've been told why.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Birds have scales on their legs and feathers on their body. Integument can vary. Amazing right? What was the why again? >NO EVIDENCE I DONT LIKE IS FAKE
Oh right israeli women from china are beaming mind control into your brain to make you feel a phantom vegana. That’s why you’re always such a b***h.
4 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/MJnFFrR.png
No you jumped to the conclusion that a dinosaur must either be entirly feathered or entirly scaled. Nothing you've stated stops Concavenator being otherwise entirly scaled and having quills on its arms. Like the evidence suggests.
>Can't read >Literally responding to a post answering the question you're asking
This is a woman posting, right?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>ad hom >ignoring content of posts and doubling down on incorrect assertions
This is a moron posting, right?
4 months ago
Anonymous
No you jumped to the conclusion that a dinosaur must either be entirly feathered or entirly scaled. Nothing you've stated stops Concavenator being otherwise entirly scaled and having quills on its arms. Like the evidence suggests.
this is where you fail at cladistics and excel at trolling. We have rules in place to prevent the backwards smearing of the clade. Some rules you broke:
1. Secondary loss of a diagnostic trait isn't counted to disqualify the taxon. A moa losing the keel doesn't matter so long as its ancestors had it. A whale losing its legs doesn't count as long as its ancestors had them.
2. A partly formed trait is not the same as the fully formed trait. The cannon bone of T. rex is not equal to the cannon bone of a sparrow.
3. A convergent gain of a trait is not treated as the same as the trait. A bat having wings is not the same thing as a bird having wings.
4. Diagnostic traits are treated as a group, such that having one or two may not be enough to place an animal in a taxon. All of the traits must be fully present in the animal or its ancestors.
Also of course whales are a type of fish just like birds are a type of dinosaur. Hope this helps with your understanding or trolling, whichever you're attempting here.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The problem with cladists is that they're fricking children that feel the need to tell everyone that whales are fish (but axchually, fish don't really exist). The Linnaean system already understood this. They just were mature enough to not drag it into every fricking conversation like they just got done watching a Kurzgesagt video.
[...]
Also when I say, e.g., that Tyrannosauroidea isn't diagnostic, I don't just mean that SOME of the diagnostic characters of Tyrannosauroidea overlap with the diagnosis of Allosauroidea,
but rather that animals are being assigned to Tyrannosauroidea based largely or entirely on overlapping diagnostic traits. Because with fossils we rarely have enough of the body for the entire diagnosis to come into play, and in fact there are no tyrannosauroids outside of Tyrannosauridae that are assigned based on the presence of ALL diagnostic traits of the clade. In fact most tyrannosauroids are assigned based on a suite of characters that largely or completely overlaps with allosauroids.
this is true of Concavenator as well. Though its position within Allosauroidea or Tyrannosauroidea doesn't matter since neither should have quill knobs. But that just points to a third option, which any scientist would immediately grasp, and several have blogged about at least in passing.
This is you're problem. You're far too mainstream, even for the minor heresies you engage in. The Proceratosaurids aren't lumped into Tyrannosauroidea for any reason other than politics. The refusal to countenance political motivations as a real and major component of modern scientific fields is a failing that many possess these days, which is why everything is going to shit to begin with: because of both those who engage in political bullshit and those who work so hard to cover it up and try to convince everyone it isn't happening. One is just as bad as the other.
>you can't publish something you suspect to be true without also publishing some evidence that it might be true.
LOL have you actually been READING papers lately? Half the feathershit published is based in wild ass speculation with no hint of actual evidence.
[...] >FISH
not a natural grouping
that's the point of the troll
the common name corresponds to a paraphyletic grouping but valid clade names often contain translations of the common paraphyletic name.
Fish as a group traditionally doesn't include cows, lizards, and humans. But Osteichthyes, generally translated as "Bony Fishes" does contain turtles and bunnies and humans.
Just like dinosaurs are not lizards but the name itself implies lizards and that makes birds a type of lizard at least in name.
the schizo is just trolling the differences between common names and natural groups. We've been doing this for over a decade on Wauf, and it's usually pretty effective for getting replies like yours and mine. It's a troll I started, and paleoschizo continues ironically since he neither understands nor subscribes to cladistics.
Only dumbBlack person cladists think paraphyly is bad. And exactly ZERO cladists can explain why. It just is, okay? Reptiles are real. Fish are real. And objective reality declares this unambiguously. Deal with it.
this is where you fail at cladistics and excel at trolling. We have rules in place to prevent the backwards smearing of the clade. Some rules you broke:
1. Secondary loss of a diagnostic trait isn't counted to disqualify the taxon. A moa losing the keel doesn't matter so long as its ancestors had it. A whale losing its legs doesn't count as long as its ancestors had them.
2. A partly formed trait is not the same as the fully formed trait. The cannon bone of T. rex is not equal to the cannon bone of a sparrow.
3. A convergent gain of a trait is not treated as the same as the trait. A bat having wings is not the same thing as a bird having wings.
4. Diagnostic traits are treated as a group, such that having one or two may not be enough to place an animal in a taxon. All of the traits must be fully present in the animal or its ancestors.
Also of course whales are a type of fish just like birds are a type of dinosaur. Hope this helps with your understanding or trolling, whichever you're attempting here.
Also when I say, e.g., that Tyrannosauroidea isn't diagnostic, I don't just mean that SOME of the diagnostic characters of Tyrannosauroidea overlap with the diagnosis of Allosauroidea,
but rather that animals are being assigned to Tyrannosauroidea based largely or entirely on overlapping diagnostic traits. Because with fossils we rarely have enough of the body for the entire diagnosis to come into play, and in fact there are no tyrannosauroids outside of Tyrannosauridae that are assigned based on the presence of ALL diagnostic traits of the clade. In fact most tyrannosauroids are assigned based on a suite of characters that largely or completely overlaps with allosauroids.
this is true of Concavenator as well. Though its position within Allosauroidea or Tyrannosauroidea doesn't matter since neither should have quill knobs. But that just points to a third option, which any scientist would immediately grasp, and several have blogged about at least in passing.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>that just points to a third option, which any scientist would immediately grasp, and several have blogged about at least in passing.
The third option being that Concavenator is neither an allosauroid nor a tyrannosauroid.
4 months ago
Anonymous
fourth option is Concavenator evolved quill knobs convergently
fifth option is the bumps on Concavenator's arms are not quill knobs.
sixth option is allosauroids had arm feathers and no other fossil has yet shown this.
4 months ago
Anonymous
fourth option is Concavenator evolved quill knobs convergently
fifth option is the bumps on Concavenator's arms are not quill knobs.
sixth option is allosauroids had arm feathers and no other fossil has yet shown this.
The problem with all of these options getting published is very simple
you can't publish something you suspect to be true without also publishing some evidence that it might be true. And that evidence hasn't been found.
so scientists may suspect any of these options, or several of them, but without any evidence, that suspicion is not getting published.
Birds are dinosaurs, but dinosaurs are not birds.
Whales are mammals, but mammals are not whales.
A tiny offshoot of a tiny offshoot got to diversify, that does not mean we get to extrapolate backwards with impunity, such as imagining bird like behaviors in dinosaurs, just as do not get to imagine bat like behaviors in andrewsarchus. It's a stupid passtime of 3rd rate paleonerds trying to make names for themselves.
Now, if only we were not cursed with only 3rd rate paleontologists it would not be so bad, but we are. So you will take your cooing and mating dancing dinosaurs and like it too.
What about Utahraptor claws? The shape is straighter. I have to assume that bigger dromaeosaurs would use different hunting tactics. I would think that a kick from a raptor the size of a polar bear would disembowel easily.
I feel like the shape of the claw and feet is suitable for both running and grappling.
Birds of prey have that opposable claw for grabbing onto prey or branches (raptorial)
Other theropods like carnosaurs have feet built for walking/running
CONT >In the light of earlier experimental results and this study, it is possible to review the interpretation of the unique fossil ([...]) of a Velociraptor and Protoceratops >Thus, it might be expected that if climbing behavior was important in dromaeosaurids, a functional switch leading to a more important role for the flexor muscles would have occurred >Flexor tendon adaptations in the foot of Velociraptor might have contributed to the fatal embrace. The tendons that flex the toes of extant perching birds are modified so that they lock the foot in a tight grip. >This grip is a result of specialized tendons that possess a ratchet-like mechanism in their sheaths >This allows birds to relax and sleep whilst perched, without releasing their grip and falling. The weight of the bird is enough to engage this elegant system. >The underlying flexor tendons on the feet of dromaeosaurs might have possessed a similar ratchet-like “locking” mechanism on the second toe. The possession of such flexor tendons would have been an energy-efficient way of countering the effect of the claw's retractor ligament. >They would have provided a useful adaptation for climbing and holding onto their prey, using gravity and limb position to assist the claw flexor and gripping function. The mechanism would then rely upon the dromaeosaur lifting its foot to release the underlying tendons to allow the retractor ligament to free the recurved claw from its prey;
>a dromaeosaur trapped/hugged by its prey would be unable to do so.
Anyone that thinks raptors were climbing trees by supporting themselves with a single toe is a goddamned moron.
>Although a climbing/grappling function for the dromaeosaurid pedal digit II ungual during predation has been suggested, it may also have provided assistance during arboreal activity. >The claw arc measurements for ground birds ranged from 52.2 to 77.6°, those of perching birds from 101.8 to 125.3°, and those of trunk-climbers form 129.5 to 161.6° >That of Deinonychus antirrhopus possesses an inner arc measurement of 160°. Comparisons with extant birds therefore support a climbing function for this structure. >The Velociraptor manual ungual modeled in this study possessed a claw arc measurement of 127°. It is likely that this claw arc angle would increase by 10–15% with the addition of a keratinous sheath, meaning the claw would fall comfortably within Feduccia's perching and trunk-climber bracket.
All your favorite dinosaurs lived in trees and ate pinecones.
Cope.
Feduccia actually has some good points and science needs heretics to get bad theories unstuck. He's absolutely right about the digit identity being fricky in birds compared to Theropods. The mainstream rebuttal is "well it just happened, okay?" lol
I think thats bullshit, it'd be a pretty inconvenient way of killing.
If i were to guess I'd say its a similar purpose to chicken spurs, mostly sexual competition between males eith some defensive use.
You sound like a moron. It had hooked, retractable talons to disembowel prey. These animals were made for jumping. They’d jump onto the side of a bigger animal and kick kick kick kick kick.
Chicken spurs? Chickens aren’t carnivorous predators hunting big game.
>You sound like a moron
There is no reason to be rude, thread asked a question I am providing a perspective. >It had hooked, retractable talons
Hmm? I which way were they retractable? Every image shows them fully exposed, they don't retract into anything like a cat's does. >They’d jump onto the side of a bigger animal and kick kick kick kick kick
You'd think if that was an effective hunting strategy in the slightest then you'd see an animal in the modern age that uses the same killing method. >Chickens aren’t carnivorous predators hunting big game.
I didn't say they were, so I don't know why you've said this. Maybe you misunderstood, I am saying i think the claws were used in a similar fashion to chicken spurs, not that they're literally the same thing.
The same fashion as in jumping kicks for dominance fights with other males or defence from predators.
I just can't see something like that being more effective for killing prey than a mouth full of teeth, especially since they are bipedal and their body plan puts their legs very far from whatever would be in front of them. I am no biomechanics expert but just mentally that seems like an unbalanced movement for them. Though the one anon that suggested it was for holding onto their kill while they bite it to death sounds like a good hypothesis, I like that idea.
>they don't retract into anything like a cat's does
NTA, they didn't retract into anything, but there's a body of evidence that suggests the offensive claws were held off the ground while walking, and are only occasionally recorded being used in soft mud and on steep angles. >Skeletal information shows that dromaeosaurids bear a retractable sickle-shaped claw on their second toe, which is held off the ground. >Most other carnivorous dinosaur tracks show three forward-pointing toes, like a bird. But a raptor footprint usually only records two complete toes and sometimes just the base of a third.
The kicking/disemboweling hypothesis is a bit controversial. There's some evidence that during hunting, the claws were more for capturing and controlling the prey rather than killing directly. >https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20986
This study analyzed XRay scans to find out how strong the claws were, and how they were likely used. >The maximum value of stress generated by the FEM under the assumed loading conditions, with a force of 400N, is around 60 MPa. This is much less than the typical range of values reported in the literature for the failure stress of extant claws of 150–200 MPa, indicating that it is reasonable to assume that the Velociraptor would have been able to support its weight on a very small contact surface while climbing. >Ostrom noted that the recurved shape of the D. antirrhopus “killing claw” coincided with the axis of maximum force that could be delivered and concluded that it was adapted for penetrating the flesh of prey. Carpenter suggested that this morphology was able to provide a piercing function. >This study supports both interpretations, but suggests this piercing ability did not facilitate the disemboweling of prey, but was instead involved in scansorial (climbing) behavior. >The evidence suggests that the form and resultant function of the “killer claws” was adapted to assist prey capture.
CONT
CONT >In the light of earlier experimental results and this study, it is possible to review the interpretation of the unique fossil (
https://i.imgur.com/lxs1684.jpg
no way to know) of a Velociraptor and Protoceratops >Thus, it might be expected that if climbing behavior was important in dromaeosaurids, a functional switch leading to a more important role for the flexor muscles would have occurred >Flexor tendon adaptations in the foot of Velociraptor might have contributed to the fatal embrace. The tendons that flex the toes of extant perching birds are modified so that they lock the foot in a tight grip. >This grip is a result of specialized tendons that possess a ratchet-like mechanism in their sheaths >This allows birds to relax and sleep whilst perched, without releasing their grip and falling. The weight of the bird is enough to engage this elegant system. >The underlying flexor tendons on the feet of dromaeosaurs might have possessed a similar ratchet-like “locking” mechanism on the second toe. The possession of such flexor tendons would have been an energy-efficient way of countering the effect of the claw's retractor ligament. >They would have provided a useful adaptation for climbing and holding onto their prey, using gravity and limb position to assist the claw flexor and gripping function. The mechanism would then rely upon the dromaeosaur lifting its foot to release the underlying tendons to allow the retractor ligament to free the recurved claw from its prey;
>a dromaeosaur trapped/hugged by its prey would be unable to do so.
People have tried to conflate the work of cassowaries for raptors. People forget that animals like bears and cassowaries have STRAIGHT claws. These are used for slashing. Animals with curved claws such as cats and raptors use them for restraining prey, not cutting other animals. Mechanical studies have already pretty unambiguously shown that raptor claws can't slice properly. The proper shape for a slashing claw would be REcurved, like a katana, not decurved like a talon.
https://i.imgur.com/HiJmoJ8.jpg
CONT >In the light of earlier experimental results and this study, it is possible to review the interpretation of the unique fossil ([...]) of a Velociraptor and Protoceratops >Thus, it might be expected that if climbing behavior was important in dromaeosaurids, a functional switch leading to a more important role for the flexor muscles would have occurred >Flexor tendon adaptations in the foot of Velociraptor might have contributed to the fatal embrace. The tendons that flex the toes of extant perching birds are modified so that they lock the foot in a tight grip. >This grip is a result of specialized tendons that possess a ratchet-like mechanism in their sheaths >This allows birds to relax and sleep whilst perched, without releasing their grip and falling. The weight of the bird is enough to engage this elegant system. >The underlying flexor tendons on the feet of dromaeosaurs might have possessed a similar ratchet-like “locking” mechanism on the second toe. The possession of such flexor tendons would have been an energy-efficient way of countering the effect of the claw's retractor ligament. >They would have provided a useful adaptation for climbing and holding onto their prey, using gravity and limb position to assist the claw flexor and gripping function. The mechanism would then rely upon the dromaeosaur lifting its foot to release the underlying tendons to allow the retractor ligament to free the recurved claw from its prey;
>a dromaeosaur trapped/hugged by its prey would be unable to do so.
The conclusion that raptors were gripping tree branches like birds is twaddle. Bird feet are totally different from raptor feet and they use their toes differently.
Are you guys all ESL or just can't read?
that paper and the other scientists cited were talking about climbing up the sides of their prey.
not climbing trees, not climbing hills.
climbing the sides of their prey.
That's not what it said. You must love the taste of carpenter's dick. He's constantly wrong but you're always jumping to his defense. Also raptors didn't hunt prey that was larger than them generally. So this doesn't even make sense. Even in Tenontosaurs, they typically targeted the young.
Right from the abstract:
"Enhanced climbing abilities of dromaeosaurid dinosaurs supports a scansorial phase in the evolution of flight."
They're clearly talking about climbing trees. A quick ctrl + f search reinforces this.
>I which way were they retractable?
they retracted up from the ground or up and out of the meat they were stuck in. >You'd think if that was an effective hunting strategy in the slightest then you'd see an animal in the modern age that uses the same killing method.
cats do something called a bunny kick.
Lions often leap onto their prey and clamp on with the mouth before gutting the animal with their legs. >I just can't see something like that being more effective for killing prey than a mouth full of teeth,
it was far stronger than teeth. We find their teeth broken off at kill sites all the time. Not their claws. If their teeth were able to cut meat, the claws were even better at it. > just mentally that seems like an unbalanced movement for them
unless they're holding onto the animal with arms, mouth, the other leg, and then using one leg to kick against the animal. >the one anon that suggested it was for holding onto their kill while they bite it to death sounds like a good hypothesis, I like that idea.
they don't need a huge curved claw for that.
[...] >Dromeosaurs do not hunt big game
they only hunted big game.
They're associated with 2 different prey animals, one is dozens of times heavier than them, the other is thousands of times heavier.
Wait, you actually think sickle-shaped claws are DESIGNED for "cutting"???
>they only hunted big game.
No they didn't, you moron. They also didn't hunt in packs, so hunting big game would have made no sense. And lions don't "gut their prey" with their claws. The bunny kick is a defensive move, not used for killing prey. Cats kill with their mouths, typically by cutting the carotid artery or clamping the windpipe.
4 months ago
Anonymous
*perching birds' feet, that is
4 months ago
Anonymous
>>they only hunted big game. >No they didn't, you moron. They also didn't hunt in packs, so hunting big game would have made no sense.
Deinonychus antirrhopus is practically a Tenontosaurus specialist. The vast majority of Deinonychus specimens are found in the vicinity of Tenontosaurus specimens and Deinonychus traces (teeth and bite marks) are present more often than not when we find Tenontosaurus specimens. And not just the subadults.
Yes, we know from stomach contents and from isotope analysis that Deinonychus didn't feed in mixed aged groups (IE the young, the subadults, and the adults are not all eating the same thing), but that doesn't rule out similar age class Deinonychus working together, and even if we can't prove that they worked together, we know that the 70kg predators were taking down 1000 kilo herbivores, and frankly I find the idea that they did so alone to be less likely than the idea that they did so cooperatively.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Deinonychus antirrhopus is practically a Tenontosaurus specialist.
Yeah, of babies.
>(teeth and bite marks)
Are these healed? Or merely present. We know Tyrannosaurs fed on Edmontosaurs and even fully grown torosauriform Triceratops because we have HEALED wounds from them present on these animals. If the wounds aren't healed, they could've just been scavenging. You are correct that they weren't taking down prey larger than themselves alone, because they most likely weren't taking it down to begin with. There is exactly as much evidence that Deinonychus was a pack hunter as there is that T. rex was: multiple remains found around watering holes.
4 months ago
Anonymous
After a quick review of Tenontasaurus bone pathology research, I can't find any high confidence healed bite mark from any predator. There's one published abscessed metacarpal bone where the author makes a throw-away remark mentioning that a possible source of the infection would have been a predator mouth, but the nature of the abscess (a Brodie abscess) means that there's not preserved tooth mark anyways.
4 months ago
Anonymous
why would you concentrate on that instead of the obvious lie in that post?
>Deinonychus antirrhopus is practically a Tenontosaurus specialist.
Yeah, of babies.
>(teeth and bite marks)
Are these healed? Or merely present. We know Tyrannosaurs fed on Edmontosaurs and even fully grown torosauriform Triceratops because we have HEALED wounds from them present on these animals. If the wounds aren't healed, they could've just been scavenging. You are correct that they weren't taking down prey larger than themselves alone, because they most likely weren't taking it down to begin with. There is exactly as much evidence that Deinonychus was a pack hunter as there is that T. rex was: multiple remains found around watering holes.
>Yeah, of babies.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You dumb gay.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Ok, if you lied about the age and size of the animals, why would anyone trust what you say about pathology?
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm only answering you in case some utterly clueless lurker sees this comment. We all know you're a bot and replying to you is pointless for any other reason. The anon I was replying to knew what I meant.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>The anon I was replying to knew what I meant.
doubtful since tenontosaurus is by far the most common animal in its faunas, with a distant second being a larger and heavily armored ankylosaur. In addition to the fact that almost all deinonychus remains have come from tenontosaurus death sites, including animals of all sizes.
so unless you're proposing it was strictly a scavenger, or a cannibal, the only possible conclusion is that it hunted tenontosaurus, all of which were larger than it was, and most of which were much larger.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Well one thing is for certain: Deinonychus couldn't have behaved in a logical fashion for a predatory animal. No it must have only hunted in packs and killed fricking sauropods or only scavenged corpses. Yep! I don't even understand what purpose this post was created for.
>by calling subadults babies
interesting, but the deinonychus were also subadults.
I found the hyperbole far more damning than the lack of healed wounds on tenontosaurus. That sort of thing is extremely rare to find outside of theropods where they spent a lot of time biting each other but not killing.
You sound like a legit moron right now.
4 months ago
Anonymous
are you saying tenontosaurus is a sauropod?
It was extremely small even by hadrosaur standards. Still much larger than deinonychus. >You sound like a legit moron right now.
coming from you that's a compliment.
4 months ago
Anonymous
No, that was slight hyperbole. Are you saying that Tenontosaurus is a Hadrosaur? Stick to theropods.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I threw away that part of the comment as hyperbole. Every predator will target dumb young animals when able, exaggerating this targeting by calling subadults babies is far less interesting than actually seeing if I could find some healed wounds.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>by calling subadults babies
interesting, but the deinonychus were also subadults.
I found the hyperbole far more damning than the lack of healed wounds on tenontosaurus. That sort of thing is extremely rare to find outside of theropods where they spent a lot of time biting each other but not killing.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not interested in "damning". For as common as Tenontasaurus was and as common as its fossils are, the scanty amount of documented bone pathologies is far more interesting than rhetorical games.
>I which way were they retractable?
they retracted up from the ground or up and out of the meat they were stuck in. >You'd think if that was an effective hunting strategy in the slightest then you'd see an animal in the modern age that uses the same killing method.
cats do something called a bunny kick.
Lions often leap onto their prey and clamp on with the mouth before gutting the animal with their legs. >I just can't see something like that being more effective for killing prey than a mouth full of teeth,
it was far stronger than teeth. We find their teeth broken off at kill sites all the time. Not their claws. If their teeth were able to cut meat, the claws were even better at it. > just mentally that seems like an unbalanced movement for them
unless they're holding onto the animal with arms, mouth, the other leg, and then using one leg to kick against the animal. >the one anon that suggested it was for holding onto their kill while they bite it to death sounds like a good hypothesis, I like that idea.
they don't need a huge curved claw for that.
Dromeosaurs do not hunt big game
>Dromeosaurs do not hunt big game
they only hunted big game.
They're associated with 2 different prey animals, one is dozens of times heavier than them, the other is thousands of times heavier.
>it was for holding onto their kill while they bite it to death sounds like a good hypothesis, I like that idea.
It's also the only hypothesis directly contradicted by fossil evidence.
In the Fighting Dinosaurs specimen from Mongolia, the Velociraptor is attempting to grapple the Protoceratops with both hands and both legs.
The only part of her body that she's not using is her mouth. It's held far back away from the struggling animal.
They died in a dune collapse. If you were trying to disengage from a fight in these conditions, you would go from grappling to pushing off of, leaving your limbs in contact (note that the arm is being restrained by proceratops as well) but moving your head away from the animal you were struggling with.
4 months ago
Anonymous
pretty hard to move your head when it's buried in tons of sand. If it could move its head it wouldn't have died.
4 months ago
Anonymous
pretty hard to move your head when it's buried in tons of sand. If it could move its head it wouldn't have died.
are we really armchair quarterbacking a dinosaur
maybe it was winding up a woodpecker snoutpunch powerattack when the dune struck
4 months ago
Anonymous
Nope, I'm saying what's preserved is the only thing we can say for sure was happening.
The raptor was grappling with all of its limbs. There were a few things it wasn't doing from the looks of it: >tail slapping the protoceratops >face humping the protoceratops >biting the protoceratops.
Hey quick question, when cats are defending themselves, what posture do they adopt and how is it different from when they're trying to kill prey? Those Velociraptors were not hunting those Protoceratops. They were fighting for their lives (and losing), probably after invading Protoceratops nests or territory or something.
People really, REALLY want Jurassic Park raptors to be real, but they just weren't. They weren't like that movie depicts Dromaeosaurs AT ALL. They weren't pack hunters. They weren't using their toe talons as swords to bleed prey. And they got mogged by ceratopsians the size of shitbulls.
Okay, typically I defend Jurassic Park as being more accurate than modern paleomedia, but raptors were not climbing carnosaurs in packs and kicking the shit out of them.
Cassowaries have the same kind of claw and all they do is eat fruit and berries. Personally I believe that the Raptors used the claw as a way to latch onto sides of trees between flights. The bigger ones that didn't fly still had them even if they were mostly useless. Like how humans have five toes but we only use four. I think that's what they were for because I saw a drawing in a book one time that had a small Raptor on the side of a tree and it looked very sensible.
Cassowaries, as laid out previously, have very different claws. Their claws are basically straight and they really ARE for disemboweling.
Is there a difference, functionally, between flying and being able to jump 7+ feet in the air while also having small wings to control and soften your fall? Don't be daft. I don't know why you keep on bringing up this >solitary thing whenever it is known, known that certain species of dromaeosaurs like deinonychus lived in family units, evidenced by multiple individuals of varying life stages being found at the same sites. There's also evidence of them consuming prey too large to take down on their own. Here's the paper that contains these findings.
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10172318
The paleontologists in this paper however, do not go as far as asserting these animals hunted in packs due to a difference between the analyses of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the teeth of adults and juveniles, which could indicate a different diet. Isotope analysis is extremely inconsistent though. You can find isotope analyses with results that could be interpreted to show that dinosaurs existed as little as 10,000 years ago. While this is obviously false it proves the unreliability of this method. The sample size is also incredibly small. Five adult and juvenile teeth respectively which could have come from only two individuals. Its impossible to know. Unknown behaviors like adults pre-chewing the food could even skew these results. Fact of the matter is they lived together. Deal with it.
Your fantasy headcannon raptors aren't real. Prehistoric planet is a cartoon. It's not real life.
>being found at the same sites
You mean watering holes? Yeah, just like T. rex.
Cassowaries also walk on their claws, and they're not dealing with the same evolutionary pressures as their ancient hypercarnivore cousins. Maybe with enough time in a more hostile environment cassowaries would evolve isolated sickle shaped claws. >You mean watering holes? Yeah, just like T. rex
>You mean watering holes?
what is taphonomy?
the problem with even the family unit idea is that most or all of the deinonychus found in tenontosaurus death assemblages were cannibalized. They ate each other.
this is more like crocodile behavior, where several animals might gather at a large kill, but they're also just fine with killing and eating each other as well.
Where is the paper for that, and does it account for observable phenomenon in the modern day, where multiple packs of the same species of animal will converge on and fight for a kill?
>that never touch the ground and are therefore never dulled
not how claws work. They grow continuously, so if you're not grinding them down on something they'll eventually reach the ground.
also grinding them down sharpens them.
[...] >not even Komodo dragons hunt like that
all predators hunt like that. Maybe not on purpose, certainly not all the time, but they all do it. Komodo dragons do it more often than faster mammalian and avian carnivores.
>not how claws work. They grow continuously, so if you're not grinding them down on something they'll eventually reach the ground.
Like a fricking babirusa? Are you just pretending to be moronic at this point? Idk how you could possibly reach that conclusion. You think cats just let their claws grow until they reach the ground? They actively sharpen them on trees and other surfaces, like ancient dromaeosaurs totally could have as well. Jesus frick try to think even a little bit abstractly.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Where is the paper for that,
there's dozens of them, I think you posted one. >and does it account for observable phenomenon in the modern day, where multiple packs of the same species of animal will converge on and fight for a kill?
It's been suggested, but there's no way of knowing at this time. Footprint evidence my be the best indication we have, and it does seem to support the possibility of social groups if not packs. >They actively sharpen them on trees and other surfaces, like ancient dromaeosaurs totally could have as well
that's what I said, buttnugget.
>all predators hunt like that
The chances of finding injured prey days after the initial attack without it already being cleaned up by other predators is pretty slim
>The chances of finding injured prey days after the initial attack without it already being cleaned up by other predators is pretty slim
yep, it sorta depends what other predators are around.
dromaeosaurs tend to be the dominant predators in their faunas at least by number. And they hunted animals large enough that if they got away, there'd still probably be enough to go around days later when they finally dropped.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>dromaeosaurs tend to be the dominant predators in their faunas at least by number.
This is highly variable. In later Cretaceous faunas they're almost always an afterthought.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Where is the paper for that
Quick google search:
https://www.gbif.org/species/144102502 >Modern archosaurs (birds and crocodiles) and Komodo dragons typically display little cooperative hunting; instead, they are usually either solitary hunters, or are drawn to previously killed carcasses, where much conflict occurs between individuals of the same species. For example, in situations where groups of Komodo dragons are eating together, the largest individuals eat first and will attack smaller Komodos that attempt to feed; if the smaller animal is killed, it is cannibalized. When this information is applied to the tenontosaur sites, it appears that what is found is consistent with Deinonychus having a Komodo or crocodile-like feeding strategy. Deinonychus skeletal remains found at these sites are from subadults, with missing parts consistent with having been eaten by other Deinonychus.
Of course right after we have to hear from a chink once again trying to frick up paleontology by inserting agenda and low IQ.
Killing isn't the goal of most predators. They're usually just fine with immobilizing via shock, injury, and blood loss.
Disemboweling works fine, so does ripping big holes in an animal and waiting for it to fall down. Usually the meal is still alive when they begin eating it. They don't have time to wait for things to die every time. Gotta eat quick.
to pincture the neck and separate the spine
they probably were specialized on killing smaller pray with their claw
>palaeo thread devolves into shit
Real palaeontologists would fricking hate you people.
>The appearance and behavior of dinosaurs is real paleontology
Real paleontologists understand the public is unaware of actual paleontology and mistakes this fred flinstone tier bullshit for science. So we don't complain much when children and morons ask us about dinosaurs, or what dinosaurs looked like, or what dinosaurs did.
But these threads would be deeply offensive to actual scientists if we for even a minute thought we were dealing with normal adults capable of complex thought.
>we
Lmfao.
Real paleontologists are patient with morons, and answer their questions politely
that's not the same as finding their questions interesting.
and it's certainly not an indication that they want to argue juvenile topics with legitimate morons.
>reddit spacing
Your seething has been noted, take your appeal to authority elsewhere
>Real paleontologists are patient with morons, and answer their questions politely
wouldn't that make you not a real paleontologist though?
I've answered every question itt (except two I skipped on purpose here to let the anons look it up or not) and I answered them quite politely dozens of times over a period of ten years.
then I got less polite about it, because it's the same tard(s) asking over and over and over and over and over and over again. And then disagreeing with the answer like they're not moronic or something.
Its one tard that still clings to 50's style taxonomy and thinks everything past that is liberal propoganda and modern paleontology is just an SJW circlejerk of baseless assersions and politics. iirc he said proceratosaurs are only tyrannosauroids because its "politically correct".
I know
He spams threads with his moronic takes, and nobody wants to talk to him.
so I stopped in for the new year to bump his bullshit thread and give him his day or two of social interaction. As usual he fricked it up by being a complete gay.
Now the thread is done, and so am I.
I will leave for greener pastures with fewer turds, and he will be stuck talking to himself again for a few months. At least in paleo threads where he's very easy to ID and ignore.
He gets lots of interaction in other Wauf threads, but even there people are starting to recognize him and will eventually learn to ignore him.
>iirc he said proceratosaurs are only tyrannosauroids because its "politically correct".
Yes, this is one of many cases where he copies my conclusions and then invents magical reasons to support them.
When I first found Wauf in 2011 or so I posted some criticisms of Rauhut's reassignment of Proceratosaurus. My reasons were that the character states he used to assign it to Tyrannosaur/oidea/idae were almost all present in Allosaurus. And his matrix include errors omitting the presence of those same characters in Allosaurus. I have repeated this criticism over the years.
He can't be happy with a simple case of one scientist doing some apparently shoddy work, even if that scientist is generally known for his shoddy work. The schizo instead has to invent magical forces trying to tear his world apart using dinosaur skulls as the leverage. Literal schizophrenic delusions.
But as in many cases, he agrees with my conclusions but tries to back them up with literal insanity instead of the facts on which I originally based them. Presumably because he can't understand the facts of the matter and has to make things up. He does this often. He usually agrees with me, but for moronic reasons.
>He usually agrees with me, but for moronic reasons.
This is why I think of him as my paduan, my apprentice. He tries SO HARD to be like me but for his own special reasons.
He doesn't understand that this doesn't look like a flattering copy to me. He's more of a disappointing caricature of me. But ultimately that's his problem, not mine. And at the end of the day Wauf can't generally tell the difference between him and me, so even if I think he's a sad joke, nobody else here gets the joke. So he's fine. He's the puppet Wauf deserves apparently.
The paleoschizo's stances on feathered rex, theropod feathers in general, the trustworthiness of china, the validity of Tyrannosauroidea, the quill knobs on Concavenator, and probably a few other topics I can't remember right now,
are all just direct copies and exaggerations of opinions I have expressed on Wauf over the years.
He's literally just a cheap copy of me without any of the thought or restraint I try to put into my own views. Which is both funny and sad to me. Not that he cares what I think of his efforts, but he probably should since he's just aping my own behavior and I can ignore him easily enough if I get bored with him.
>I can ignore him easily enough if I get bored with him.
and lately he has been boring me
I understand him I think. I understand him very well. But understanding him erases all interest I had in him previously. I now see he is not going anywhere with all of this. He's learning vast volumes of information about very shallow topics of paleontology, but he has no context in which to arrange the information and no particular idea what to do with it except trying to impress strangers on a mongolian throat singing club.
none of this is going anywhere. I am not inspiring the next generation of curious scientists, I'm just feeding a useless monster.
>he, he, he
It has never been a he, it's been multiple people, trolling you, and each other, because this is Wauf and as a bit of a nut, you are easily trolled and provide a good memetic foundation for later trollings. You are getting bored because they are getting bored. You have the same reactions every time, the ones pretending to be you to counter troll have increased in number, and the inside joke is losing its appeal.
The original "he" was just the head of many, they are legion.
Paleontology isn't an important discipline so there was never a lot of serious interest here. If you take something gay seriously prepare to be trolled. Lulz! Now lurk moar before posting again
none of you are that bright.
>we were pretending to be moronic!
nah, if you can pretend that well you're actually moronic. I've spent years watching it unroll, carefully cataloged and classified the mental errors required to reach a false conclusion.
I refuse to believe there are that many systematically stupid people here, brilliant enough to mimic the complexities of extreme debilitating autism and willing to do so just for laughs. It is in fact a person. The errors are genuine. I couldn't reproduce them if I tried, and I seriously doubt any normal human mind could. That would require a sort of genius that is completely lacking on this board.
>it cant be real because i am the smartest person here
The average IQ on Wauf is somewhere between 108 and 115 but mental illness makes it effectively 80. We have "oldgays" that came here this very year and just finished reading all of tbharchive to oldgay up. People are rapidly googling things, flipping through articles, and copying their peers to argue for fun. Your insanity, delusions, and egotism makes you not just an easy target, but someone who gives out free material so the troll collective can further develop while remaining totally unware of what's actually happening.
Enjoy your 300 post samegay session now
t. bugguy
>108 and 115
Sweet summer child, we're ALL moronic here.
the thread is done and I'm leaving soon.
If you think bugguy or paleoschizo's thought process is easy to replicate you don't understand what they're doing.
also you severely overestimate how 'trolled' I am. If I actually found the topic annoying I would've left over a decade ago, and wouldn't have spent years seeking the person out to ask their thoughts on things.
In fact their variety of moronation is extremely rare in public and relatively rare on the internet. I am not rare, I'm all over Wauf and lots of other sites. I never encounter the thought patterns I find so interesting outside of Wauf, and when I encounter them here it always ends up being a single user displaying them.
anyways, it's been a fun thread, though I didn't learn anything new about autism or stupidity. You guys enjoy your discussions of animals. I'm off again for a few months or years.
The problem with assuming the strictly dichotomous thought of bugguy or paleoschizo is just performance for my sake is that it occurs outside paleo threads regularly. It's rarely directed at me. When I do interact with it, the autist doesn't generally recognize me unless I allow him to. And of course once I recognize the autist he will admit to being paleoschizo even if he doesn't recognize me personally.
also the fact that I'm often not present on Wauf for a full year at a time and the performance continues without my even being here.
It would be fun to assume I had a whole stable of prostitutes performing for me personally, but that's simply not the case. Sadly.
the actual truth is Wauf has one really annoying autistic moron, and pretty much everyone here hates him. He is a significant fraction of board traffic, he posts relentlessly on many different topics day in and day out.
>he posts relentlessly
or she as the case may be.
as anons often point out he sounds like a woman, or a very effeminate gay man. All of his opinions are emotional rather than being based in facts. He cannot actually distinguish reality from his feelings about it.
>he's boring
>has a full 5 page monolog/dialog with his wife about me
I'm flattered.
This b***h thought this comment was important.
nope just a pedantic c**t.
I meant moreso that real, actual palaeontologists would hate the way you (royal you) all are, not necessarily the questions and ignorance. The arrogance and rudeness, the racism and shoving people into boxes and 'I'm better than you because I read this paper and you didn't wah wah wah'. I say this as someone who works in a museum with real palaeontologists and paleontological professors who talk about their students, some of whom are itt apparently, and how much they hate people like this.
Stay here. Stay itt. Don't come to conferences or do a palaeontology degree. We're talking about you behind your back in the staff room.
Real™ "paleontologists" are trannies and women.
being a contrarian in the kiddie pool just means you're still in the kiddie pool.
The kiddie pool is shallow and warm.
Anything else you'd like to get off your chest before this thread 404's and I walk away for another few months completely forgetting you exist?
Now's your chance little buddy. Say what you want to say. It's about to get real quiet around here again.
>Real™ "paleontologists" are trannies and women
And much more accomplished than you. Sounds like a fun club, way better than whatever the frick you have going on. I'm gonna hang out with them.
>And much more accomplished than you.
No they're not.
Oh we know that Real Paleontologists™ would NEVER question china or actually critically analyze ANY paper. We've covered this many times. But nobody buys your bullshit about it being "racism". We know it's about access and career advancement. Don't try to ride the high horse down there in hell where you live. As for your lack of ability to criticize each other's papers, that's literally why we have the replication crisis. You're a bunch of soft homies that got too accustomed to your field being a country club. It's not supposed to be and never was. You're supposed to be doing fricking work here, butthole, not socializing. We know EXACTLY what academia hates. We have the receipts. We hate (You).
>n-n-NO THEYRE NOT!!!! *seething wojak face with snot dribbling out of nose*
Suuuuuure.
>Oh we know that Real Paleontologists™ would NEVER question china
Except they have, and actually proved a specimen was a bit of microaptor glued to a primative bird called Yanornis.
Inb4 one forged fossil now proves all fossils of feathered dinosaurs from china are fake.
>or actually critically analyze ANY paper.
I see you've never been awear of the Nanotyrannus/Tyrannosaurus ontogeny debate...
> As for your lack of ability to criticize each other's papers, that's literally why we have the replication crisis.
Thats hilarious considering Megaraptora still ping pongs around the theropod tree with each new taxa/paper after a decade of the family being named and like 2 dozen genra described.
>that's literally why we have the replication crisis.
You do realize how trivially easy it is to reproduce phylogenies to check if paper is bullshitting you? Download TNT/Mesquite, find the matrix the paper uses in the supplimental and generate a tree... Hell you can make your own bespoke matricies by taking the individual values of taxa and combining them.
He doesn't actually know what a replication crisis is exactly, he just knows it gets responses from scientists if he mentions it.
the responses are just me pointing out how easy paleontology is to replicate, but he doesn't understand that. He seems to think the replication crisis refers to the CONCLUSIONS rather than the science behind them. Which is cute, and funny, and a pretty good indication he doesn't begin to understand science.
Anyways, his ignorance is on daily display. He's really good at it. Being ignorant that is. It's his entire schtick.
The reason he obsessively brings up the replication crisis is because I generally respond to his criticisms at length. Not because it pisses me off, but because I believe it's a very simple error that even a tard like him could learn to understand. And once he understands what a replication crisis is, and why it's not just different interpretations of an unchanging data set, he would begin to understand science.
I don't really care that an anonymous tard thinks paleontology suffers from a replication crisis, I'm merely trying to help him understand the thing he insists on trying to criticize and mostly missing. He mistakes my attempts to explain a very simple error on his part for anger that he's right. This is funny, but not unexpected from the mentally ill and deficient.
If there's anything he does that actually annoys me it's citing my own work back at me and telling me it doesn't mean what I say it means. But even that's a very minor irritation. I could just dox myself and prove to him I know what my work says. It's just not really worth having some literal schizophrenic of unknown capacity knowing where I live. And whether he understands my work or not, he cites it often and I don't mind that at all.
Even without cladism, birds are a kind of dinosaur, and humans are a kind of mudskipper. It is self evident.
>FISH
not a natural grouping
that's the point of the troll
the common name corresponds to a paraphyletic grouping but valid clade names often contain translations of the common paraphyletic name.
Fish as a group traditionally doesn't include cows, lizards, and humans. But Osteichthyes, generally translated as "Bony Fishes" does contain turtles and bunnies and humans.
Just like dinosaurs are not lizards but the name itself implies lizards and that makes birds a type of lizard at least in name.
the schizo is just trolling the differences between common names and natural groups. We've been doing this for over a decade on Wauf, and it's usually pretty effective for getting replies like yours and mine. It's a troll I started, and paleoschizo continues ironically since he neither understands nor subscribes to cladistics.
>Just like dinosaurs are not lizards but the name itself implies lizards and that makes birds a type of lizard at least in name.
squamata != sauria
Yep, we sometimes change the name to correct the problem. But we didn't change the name of dinosaurs, and it still means lizard in latin.
I introduced the troll to Wauf as a method of communicating cladistic concepts.
the statement, "you are a FISH," wouldn't be surprising or offensive to any paleontologist born after 1960. We recognize humans at a variety of bony fish.
paleoschizo continues the troll as what he views as a reductio ad absurdum. Science in his mind has gone so far wrong that humans are now considered fishes. He sees the idea as absurd because he's basically just a creationist in fancy dress.
either usage communicates the same idea though. It varies only in what the writer thinks of the idea. The fact is scientists consider humans a type of fish, for very good reasons, no matter how the paleoschizo or anyone else here feels about it.
>The fact is scientists consider humans a type of fish, for very good reasons, no matter how the paleoschizo or anyone else here feels about it.
this leads to interesting contradictions, such as whales being fish even though evolutionists in the public have spent their entire life trying to explain why whales AREN'T fish.
Or the more plebian "Birds ARE dinosaurs" which irritates the frick out of the schizo because he is either a creationist or has a 1950's level understanding of taxonomy where replacement is the norm instead of inclusion. Either way he thinks the paraphyletic groupings of the past are somehow valid and descriptive of natural groups simply because he's a luddite fond of the past more than the present.
The schizo's failure to understand all this combined with mental moronation characterized as autism results in fun false equivalences.
in his mind if birds are dinosaurs then dinosaurs must be birds. He recognizes equivalences and dichotomies, but not nested sets. He can't comprehend a world where birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds. Or humans are fishes but not all fishes are humans.
this failure is evidenced with posts such as this one
where the poster mistakes a subset as an equivalence. This is either a brilliant troll imitating mental moronation, or more likely just a mentally moronic person.
>This is either a brilliant troll imitating mental moronation, or more likely just a mentally moronic person.
and of course he loves to get hundreds of responses by trying to impose his moronation on normal people.
this thread is a great example. He demands ONE USE of the maniraptoran toe claw, and insists that the various possible uses must engage in a death match to determine the ONE TRUE USE that automatically negates all others.
Real humans recognize that the world doesn't work like that, so they attempt to explain to the moron why there may be multiple uses instead of one right use and many wrong ones.
he calls them losers and declares himself the winner and thinks the normal minds are moronic. In real life he's just a moron prancing around misunderstanding everything and pissing off the normies that don't understand what he's doing. Those who do understand pity him the same way we pity a downie we meet as a diversity hire mopping floors at mcdonalds. It's sad when humans are born deformed, but they probably have some other good qualities somewhere.
Scientists generally aren't morons, so they automatically understand that the dromaeosaur toe claw had multiple uses
when a paper is published arguing for a particular use, it doesn't negate other uses, it's just included in the group of "possible uses."
There's no need to decide which one use is right and which others are wrong. It's possible they're all correct or none of them are correct or some are correct.
The autistic moron can't handle this variety of thought, and most here see it as dishonest, disingenuous, backtracking, wishy-washy, or whatever. And when an autistic moron that can't consider multiple possibilities calls you any of those things it's probably a compliment. You don't fit in their mental box, and that's a damn good thing.
The other thing the moron likes to do is complain that science isn't adequately communicating these concepts. Stuff like multiple possible conclusions, contradictory possible conclusions, one conclusion not necessarily excluding others.
This isn't a failure in scientific communication, this is a failure in mental abilities of the moron. You cannot communicate these ideas to someone who can't understand them, or doesn't want to.
So no amount of preaching is going to convince the OP that the sickle claw had multiple uses, or that he didn't win an argument by advocating for just one use. He's a moron, he can't understand the truth no matter how it's communicated.
We get fun results out of this, such as a moron saying scientists are dishonest or moronic because he can't even begin to understand what they're doing.
Or that a dromaeosaur climbing trees is a moronic idea because he cannot understand how animal behavior works.
This is entertaining for all involved, but guarantees no actual discussion of science will ever take place here. Because you can't discuss a topic nobody in the group understands. Anyone that does understand the topic is just going to leave as soon as they realize they're talking to a pack of literal morons. And that only takes a minute or two to see.
>such as a moron saying scientists are dishonest or moronic
What's absolutely insane is that you are STILL trying to claim bad and dishonest work isn't being done on a scale corrosive to the scientific endeavor itself. You damn well know better than this. EVERY scientist knows better than this, which means you're firmly on the side of the knowing liars, which makes you an enemy of science.
>What's absolutely insane is that you are STILL trying to claim bad and dishonest work isn't being done on a scale corrosive to the scientific endeavor itself.
I never said that.
you assume if someone disagrees with your wrong understanding of the world then they must be advocating your false opposite.
this is a simple false dichotomy, and you do it several times a day, every day, for decades. I'm sure people have told you you're mentally handicapped, including people far more qualified than me, and you choose to ignore it or aren't capable of understanding it.
Just because you personally cannot identify a zebra doesn't imply that zebras don't exist. It just means you're moronic.
>Anyone that does understand the topic is just going to leave as soon as they realize they're talking to a pack of literal morons. And that only takes a minute or two to see.
That or shitpost for fun
>The other thing the moron likes to do is complain that science isn't adequately communicating these concepts
I most assuredly have never complained about that. That's the media's doing. "Scientists" get what they want to get across quite well. The ultimate example of this is the fact that EVERYONE believes nick wrongb***h "won" the debate about Torosaurus not being Triceratops vs Jack Horner. Problem is, he's not just objectively wrong, but everyone that agrees with him HAS NOT READ HIS FRICKING PAPER. Or if they have, they don't know shit about Ceratopsians. Anyone that did both would know that wrongb***h claims one of the largest Torosaurus skulls EVER FOUND was a "juvenile" and that he thinks he can sex Ceratopsians, which is fascinating, because if he can, he's the only person on Earth with the ability. A lot of stink is raised about the media misrepresenting scientific findings, but we're to the point now were a LOT of people are actually reading the papers now and that shit doesn't fly for long. The problem now is the "scientists" themselves because they're just plain doing shit work and trying to make up for it by cultivating a fanbase like the prostitutes they actually are.
Im
I was trolling, Spesifically trying to get paleoschizo to bite.
>even though evolutionists in the public have spent their entire life trying to explain why whales AREN'T fish.
Yeah, that's because they didn't all used to be cladist morons and fish have different shared, OBJECTIVELY REAL characteristics that cetaceans lack and vice versa. It's worth noting at this point that cladism, like all CIA bullshit that rotted society, arose in the 60s. Cladists are so full of their own bullshit, they can't even begin to conceive of the fact that ALL classification systems are artificial and cladism is LESS natural and objective than the Linnaean system. Reptiles are a real facet of life. They exist, they have shared traits. They share a common ancestry. Birds branch off of that ancestry. So do mammals. But we don't call Vedic a Romance language because it's part of a monophyletic group with French. A Linnaean-like system is how Nature literally operates. It's how evolution works. That's why we use that sort of system to classify just about everything. A ginkgo doesn't ask an oak if its in the same order before trying to frick. The view that including every member of a group and all of its descendants in the same group is *better* than excluding groups that are different enough to warrant their own classification is an entirely artificial view. We've been over this before. It's like trying to introduce Latin being an Indo-European language into every single conversation about Latin. Every time. Until you get punched.
>Scientists generally aren't morons
The replication crisis that you and every other unworthy STEMisraelite claims isn't happening says otherwise. You're also losing the narrative. So not only are you objectively wrong about the science itself, which you're destroying with your dumbshit politicking, you're losing your audience - the public - also.
>Science in his mind has gone so far wrong that humans are now considered fishes.
God damn, you are WAY dumber than you think you are. See above. We have always known that humans are descended from fish. Saying humans ARE fish is reddit, not science. You literally can't justify cladism. Examined for more than one second, the entire system falls apart. The Linnaean system is saying you get your family name from your parents and belong to the same family. Cladism is saying you are your mother and being smug about it while your family tells you you need to start bathing before coming to the christmas party.
saw you got banned in the other thread while they left my replies to you up. Jannies work in mysterious ways.
They should know by now, banning you just makes you post more. Or they should haul out the rangeban and wipe you off the board for a few months. I've long been curious how much the board traffic would drop if they just got rid of you.
anyways, hope your evening is going swell.
Well yeah, this isn't the only board I post on. It's my full time job to disrupt CIA propaganda. I get banned about twice a day at this point. I just wish they weren't such redditrannies about it and deleted all a banned person's posts. If they're going to go full reddit they should just replace the comments with [comment removed by moderator] and [deleted].
Blue boards are cancer and always have been. They're a backdoor for redditry to enter this holy ground. Frick the CIA. Death to the great satan. And israelites rape kids.
>this isn't the only board I post on.
I'm aware. Sometimes I'm posting with you on multiple boards at the same time.
As you know.
>Well yeah, this isn't the only board I post on
I forgot you were a /misc/ dreg
>It's my full time job to disrupt CIA propaganda
Kek
I frickin love how dino threads awlays turn into rightoid slapfights
You're all my moronic little monkeys, and I love seeing you guys dance <3
>paleoschizo for feathers, trannies and chinks
>old paleontologist guy for dick measuring, backpedaling and incorrect assertions about modern animals
>autist who sees one random throwaway statement that’s incorrect, jumps in halfway and slides down the entire thread on it
>moron who argues over the exact specifics of every single statement made in the thread and hounds every single minor contradiction to a single earlier sentence of no importance
>OP who knew exactly what he was doing when he posted a thread asking a benign dino question
Yup, this is certainly an Wauf paleo thread. Am I missing anyone? Raise your hand
several of those are the same people, but pretty good analysis.
Forgot
>philosophical or semantic arguments about about nature of "science" and "art"
>whining about the zeitgeist of modern science and academics
If you want some real fun search how many times each image itt has been posted in the past, and who posted them.
or just check how many times we've already had this thread.
Sometimes I like to check the date ranges to see how long some fricking tard on Wauf has been rambling about the same tired topics.
Yeah I've seen it all this time and honestly don't know what to do with most of it. I mostly come to look at pictures like a moron.
>looking at pictures
>on an imageboard
tf is wrong with you?
kidding, I kid.
>jump on large prey animals back
>lock big sickle claw into their back
>then go to town on a soft spot with their teeth
yes, this is one of the stranger ideas that has been floated. Also the subject of a disney cartoon or two if I remember right.
they clamped on to a struggling animal and simply began eating it.
the main problem with the idea is they'd get squished like a mosquito. That might give others and opportunity to attack, but the first few attackers would be dead anyways.
which fits the death assemblages we've found, but seems like a really bad strategy in the long run.
The most likely scenario is they were just using these claws to hold smaller prey still while they ate them like modern eagles.
Read the comments regarding cassowaries.
>no academic would see uncertainty as a weakness. That's dogma.
I can understand actual scientists that work in their fields academically doing so. What I CANNOT comprehend is them actually eating their own horseshit that modern science is objective and not just some attempt at mimicking the 24 hour tabloid news cycle for views- excuse me citations. The entirety of modern academia is not just overrun with dogma, it is obnoxiously so. Offensively so to the casual observer. The emperor isn't just naked, he's been flayed alive and he's getting gore all over everybody.
>there are multiple sites in the Flaming Cliffs that have produced protoceratops bones with tooth marks from velociraptor, and no sites that have produced the reverse.
You know, if you would just stick to the facts like this, you'd be a halfway decent poster. Most people just want to discuss the actual findings, not engage in pissing contests.
That's not me.
Oh so you're not divorced then? I heard you broke up.
>The entirety of modern academia is not just overrun with dogma, it is obnoxiously so
Your main problem in these threads and elsewhere is that people who care about paleontology are obsessed with rocks and bones, and don't give a frick about your views on race, religion, politics, persons, or science.
Just bones and rocks. Obsessed to the point where we might enjoy tangentially related topics like illustrations or ecology or evolution, but certainly not the bullshit you relate to.
Not only do your complaints fall on deaf ears, but they're irritating to people who just want to talk about rocks and bones. You know this, and you keep trying to steer the conversation into culture and politics anyways. So we just ignore you.
There's nothing you can do about this because you're not smart enough to talk about rocks or bones in any meaningful way. And even if you were smart enough, you're simply not interested. It's taken you 4 years to gain less knowledge of anatomy than we require of candy stripers and nursing school candidates. You know less than the average ambulance driver. Your knowledge of rocks is even more abysmal. I know you're capable of learning this stuff, you just don't care.
Conversely, the people that care about bones and rocks don't give a frick about the things you care about. You're in the wrong thread, on the wrong board, and very certainly talking to the wrong people. Sadly for you, people like you don't care about dinosaurs, so you're never really going to find anyone to talk to. Not in any meaningful way. Not about dinosaurs.
>So we just ignore you.
These threads consistently reaching 200-300 replies with the autistic screeching of you two making up the majority of it disagrees
>These threads consistently reaching 200-300 replies with the autistic screeching of you two making up the majority of it disagrees
>the one from the 22nd of December that you've screenshotted the archive search for literally had 2 frog pics and a "bump" as the only three replies,
If I decide to blow up a paleo thread I will
If I ignore a paleo thread it goes away.
depends on my mood and how much work I have to do.
>If I decide to blow up a paleo thread I will
>If I ignore a paleo thread it goes away.
>depends on my mood and how much work I have to do.
I don't think you realise how pathetic that sounds dude. It is not glorious to start a fight with a troony obsessed moron online that goes for 300 replies
>It is not glorious to start a fight with a troony obsessed moron online that goes for 300 replies
I haven't seriously argued with that gay for about a year.
also check who's getting replies itt.
there are (at least) 3 autists here. One of them in particular typically gets ignored. Even when he has something interesting to say, it's usually not worth touching that wasps' nest.
Therapods couldnt pronate their wrists so they evolved fancy claws on their feet to take care of business simple as
I would teach you to spell "theropods" but then I would have a harder time searching for your posts in the archives.
Pycnofibers are basal to archosaurs
of course "therapod" is a typo I purposefully and regularly introduced prior to 2015 to see if anyone noticed. The first few times were mistakes, I suck at spelling. But since nobody mentioned it I sorta ran with it.
I have purposely trained him wrong, as a joke.
>I was merely pretending to be moronic, it was actually a joke the whole time
This is like the allosaurus face biting thing. Dinogays are a scourge on this board
I showed you why and you still didn't understand.
Identifying a specific user and tracking their past posts is not just a joke.
>This is like the allosaurus face biting thing.
some things I never tell you because I'm interested to see if you learn them on your own.
Look at all the interesting velociraptor factoids I didn't shove in anon's face this thread. Or dental comparisons of various unrelated herbivores. I'm curious if he learns of his mistakes on his own.
Usually I find the date range more informative than the content of your past posts
but sometimes I like to look back and see you calling me a moron for something and then a year or two later adopting my view and pretending you came by it on your own.
You are my ball of clay. I mold and shape you. You don't admit it, but you don't need to.
It was mainly used to sell toys and movies, like everything else about dinosaurs.
check'd
lucky for us this extremely marketable organ managed to survive and proliferate across the globe over millions of years despite having no function aside from selling toys in the far distant future.
>over millions of years
No
creationist or just unaware of how long raptors existed?
Nobody knows how old the Earth is but I know China has been around for a few centuries
Not a young Earth creationist, but I definitely wish china had never existed.
>Cassowaries also walk on their claws
Ironic you say this because guess what raptor toes are designed for? Terrestrial movement. This is why the whole "arboreal" argument is batshit moronic. It's like claiming ostrich feet are for perching on branches.
>Maybe with enough time in a more hostile environment cassowaries would evolve isolated sickle shaped claws.
Why on Earth would they? Their claws actually CAN disembowel animals several times their size. If anything cassowaries are far more adapted for disemboweling prey than raptors ever were. And cassowaries are ratites, they don't have hypercarnivore ancestors. I know it's fashionable with furgays to believe this shit, but Dromaeosaurs are not the ancestors of birds. No, I don't give a shit about your fake shit from china. Never have, never will. Eventually, even you will come to understand that no amount of chinese hoaxes will ever affect the truth of paleontology.
You really, REALLY want to believe that Jurassic Park raptors are real, but the truth found in the fossils simply does not line up.
Quick somebody tell these wolves that this bison is too big for them.
why are dino feet so erotic
They jabbed it right in the neck of prey to puncture either the jugular or windpipe. Think like a fang on their foot.
This recent "pinning down" bullshit is so fricking dumb since we have a famous fossil of them using it on the throat. Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration; it was a meat hook plunged into the neck.
>They jabbed it right in the neck of prey to puncture either the jugular or windpipe. Think like a fang on their foot.
Interesting hypothesis, lets talk about this.
>Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration; it was a meat hook...
Yes.
>This recent "pinning down" bullshit is so fricking dumb since we have a famous fossil of them using it on the throat.
Take any predator/prey interaction inference you make from MPC-D 100/512, MPC-D 100/25 (the "fighting dinosaurs" fossil, the proceratops specimen and the velociraptor specimen respectively), with a spoon full of salt. Things are obviously not going as MPC-D 100/25 intended them to go.
Is it possible that Velociraptors kicked under the frills of Proceratops to stab them in the jugular with their sickle claw? Sure. Is the fact that MPC-D 100/25 is doing this to MPC-D 100/512 evidence that this was their preferred attack mode? No, MPC-D 100/25 is laying on its side and has been restrained by MPC-D 100/512. This is a very dangerous position for a predator to be in (as evidenced by the fact that MPC-D 100/25 fricking died like this). As a fast moving carnivore, the safety of a Velociraptor's lower leg is probably once of his primary concerns any time he's in conflict with an animal large enough to hurt him. Anything that happens to him that threatens his mobility threatens his life. I could see him attacking the neck of a prey item with his claws, if he can do it in such a way that the prey item cannot pinch restrain his leg and harm him. I don't know enough about Proceratops neck mobility to say that this means he couldn't necessarily attack the back or sides of the neck from above and behind, but he's certainly not going to assume the motherfricking blowjobjutsu ground guard or half guard (like MPC-D 100/25) as an attack strategy. These animals are in an equal struggle and only idiots end up in an equal struggle, a predator's job is to make everything as unequal as possible to control your risk.
Protoceratops is the predator in that example, fwiw
>the gazelle was hunting the cheetah
not particularly likely
a wild hog eating a fox would be more accurate, and I think if you'll entertain that comparison you might see it as more valid.
>a wild hog eating a fox would be more accurate
the teeth are very similar to plateosaurus, iguanodon, and hadrosaurs. Generally interpreted as herbivores rather than omnivores. Not to say it couldn't have killed the velociraptor, I just doubt it would've eaten it if it did. There's a lot of fossils of protoceratops that got eaten by velociraptor, but no cases of the reverse that I'm aware of.
>the teeth are very similar to plateosaurus, iguanodon, and hadrosaurs.
former: boar
this: protoceratops
not 1:1 but clearly within the same realm
>not 1:1 but clearly within the same realm
yeah, close enough right? Details don't matter, as long as they look a little similar in side view.
So we've decided protoceratops was a predator, and velociraptor was an important part of its diet. It didn't have quills, but it did happen to die on top of some quill-like plants whenever it could. Lots of animals did this. Longisquama died on top of the same plant every time.
when protoceratops wasn't busy hunting velociraptors or dying on top of quill-like plants, it was evolving hooves and wings to make it more pig-like.
Uhh... I think this is a bit of an over-reaction to my posts. I don't frequent Wauf as much as some of the people itt so I'm not sure what combination of factors is involved here:
>Do you think I'm the paleoschizo?
>Are some of these posts paleoschizo? I genuinely can't tell, haven't built up that pattern recognition well enough yet
>My suggestions being "I'm right you're wrong" instead of "I think this, I think it's reasonable"
>Black person Black person Black person idk
I just think it's a very reasonable position to suggest this. Also with regards to their chewing mechanisms, no, they literally DO have a basal method thereof, ceratopsians are oddly basal in a lot of ways, despite their obvious and prominent derived features. Hadrosaurs especially really do have very derived chewing mechanisms comparatively and are not a good analogy.
supplemental 1/2
supplemental 2/2
instead of asking how plateosaurus, iguanodon, protoceratops, hadrossaurs, and brachiosaur teeth are similar, you have chosen to look at the differences.
instead of asking how protoceratops and hog teeth are different, you have chosen to look at the similarities.
These are interesting choices, they indicate a desire to defend a point, not learn anything.
>they indicate a desire to defend a point, not learn anything.
When Wauf doesn't want to learn something I will usually oblige. The process of refusing to learn results in an interesting board culture, a head-cannon if you will. The ways in which belief about dinosaurs here differ from the rest of the world are interesting, and amusing.
The idea of protoceratops running around killing and eating velociraptors is funny. As is the idea of chinese laborers carefully drawing feathers onto fossil dinosaurs with charcoal pencils. Or longisquama and protoceratops having the innate instincts to fall over dead on certain very carefully arranged plants sometimes, or all the time. These are fun ideas, and they don't need to be refuted. Let the more serious forums discuss why that's moronic. This board is preserved in all its schizophrenic glory as a testament to how the ignorant interpret reality. It's good stuff. Like the night ape neanderthal or the thick mesozoic atmosphere soup, or even the timecube. It's valuable not for its accuracy, but for its imagination. Art, not science. Pretty good art at that. Approaching genius at least for being wildly contrarian and having the appearance of reason.
I don't think ceratopsians participating in incidental carnivory is even particularly rare of a stance. I don't believe the rest of the "canon" you suggested there by the way, to further illustrate that I'm not the paleoschizo and/or to indicate that I'm being genuine.
>timecube
Oh. Do you get all your opinions from youtube?
>I don't think ceratopsians participating in incidental carnivory is even particularly rare of a stance
it would be surprising if they didn't
it would also be surprising if one of their preys happened to be their main predator. Like a zebra eating a live hyena just because it got the chance.
>I just think it's a very reasonable position to suggest this.
you did not ask any questions, so your opinion will never evolve.
You asserted a couple laughable premises and hoped someone would argue them with you or agree. I have chosen the latter. You are clearly right, you are the expert.
we have trained you wrong as a joke.
this reeks of disingenuousness.
>you did not ask any questions, so your opinion will never evolve.
>You asserted a couple laughable premises and hoped someone would argue them with you or agree.
I've provided a stance that is within reason. You dismissing it as trolling is not grounds for me to change my opinion. In fact, I genuinely attempted to highlight the comparison YOU provided as faulty. Does that mean your premise is laughable and that I should dismiss it? No, I said "no, here are some significant differences." Hadrosaur jaws are ludicrously derived and completely dissimilar to ceratopsian jaws. If you had compared them to stegosaurs or something I might not have even raised an eyebrow.
>instead of asking how plateosaurus, iguanodon, protoceratops, hadrossaurs, and brachiosaur teeth are similar, you have chosen to look at the differences.
Those are all significantly different from one another in method of actuation and overall shape beyond superficial similarities.
>instead of asking how protoceratops and hog teeth are different, you have chosen to look at the similarities.
I used them as a one-off comparison, admitting in the initial post that it was not 1:1, because they are both capable of eating the same foodstuffs and arguably analogous. Ceratopsian teeth are NOT exactly the same as hog teeth, and DO more closely resemble other dinosaurs they were related to - but in positing my stance, I compared them due to them both being mounted to relatively simple jaws that do not engage in a complicated form of chewing and are relatively flat and relatively wide. The fact that I wrote this out instead you looking at that initial post and going "ah I can see his comparison" is what's laughable here.
>These are interesting choices, they indicate a desire to defend a point, not learn anything.
Why should I learn from someone (or some people) who are clearly excessively sardonic, aggressive, and unintelligent?
1/2
not to mention that from the very beginning I was painting this as a state of incidental predation. I said it was the predator in that altercation, someone sarcastically responded as a gazelle killing a cheetah, and I retorted with a much more reasonable example of a boar eating a fox.
>Not ultimately common
>Disregards any STANDARD predatory behavior
>frankly irrelevant to anatomy, judging on how often obligate herbivores eat small animals
>body size, diets, and ecology of those involved in the comparison are within reasonable distance
Ask yourself this: Have there been boars that ate a fox? Could you reasonably believe that IF (highlighting: IF) ceratopsians occupied a niche closer to a boar than, say, a rhino or horse (which is well within reason) and IF (highlighting: IF) dromaeosaurs occupied a niche closer to a fox than, say, a wildcat or coyote (which is well within reason) then COULD (highlighting: COULD) a protoceratops predate a velociraptor? The answer is yes, with those prerequisites. Do not disregard this nuanced (highlighting: nuanced) stance as an objective or extreme stance, which would suggest it as the default. I am saying: This scenaril preserved in the fossil record reads to me as incidental predation from an odd situation.
2/2
I REALLY doubt Protoceratops were preying on Velociraptor. The logistics of this situation are - to use a scientific term - whack.
>The idea of protoceratops running around killing and eating velociraptors is funny.
Yes.
>As is the idea of chinese laborers carefully drawing feathers onto fossil dinosaurs with charcoal pencils
No.
>Or longisquama and protoceratops having the innate instincts to fall over dead on certain very carefully arranged plants sometimes, or all the time.
Honey, you need to do one of two things: either actually start studying something other than Theropods, or only stick to commenting on Theropods.
It's a common opinion, but probably wrong. No more than cattle. Ceratopsians were not boars.
There's no way that Velociraptor was a "significant predator" on Protoceratops other than babies (which isn't unlikely considering how populous Protoceratops was). As I've pointed out several times now, the famous dueling pair clearly consists of a losing Velociraptor and a winning Protoceratops and this has nothing to do with predation on either side. It's clearly interspecies conflict, likely over territory or something.
>That beak is no joke.
Very correct. People seriously understimate the ability of Ceratopsians to frick shit up. Imagine an elephant with the head of an Alligator Snapping Turtle. These animals regularly KILLED the apex predators of their respective faunal assemblages.
>I've provided a stance that is within reason.
interesting that so few experts arrive at your reasonable conclusion. Does this cause dissonance, or are you unaware? I think you just mistake your own level of knowledge for the equal of the experts. You mistake yourself for an expert.
you use a lot of big words, but fail to understand meanings. And you assume you're smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. This doesn't require any particular response from me.
>but think about the experts! That's not a very scientific-concensus approved opinion you have!
>it would also be surprising if one of their preys happened to be their main predator.
I personally estimate velociraptor to not really be capable of taking down a protoceratops in any but the most precarious of conditions, similar to my earlier example. But, if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree. It is kind of hard to tell what weight classes are genuinely compatible with regards to predation, like this that someone above
was pointing out. I just think the weight and weaponry doesn't line up well. That beak is no joke.
>That's not a very scientific-concensus approved opinion you have!
the idea isn't that you should agree with the experts, rather you should understand why they hold their opinions. In some cases that understanding will require decades of learning. In some cases it would take a lifetime. But disagreeing with an opinion you don't fully understand is much easier, and faster, and more fun.
>if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree.
....
>That beak is no joke.
indeed. There's a fair chance if they hadn't gotten buried, the fighting dinos would've both been dead anyways. But no reason to think either carcass would've been eaten by other protoceratops and plenty of reason to think they'd both be eaten by velociraptors.
>But disagreeing with an opinion you don't fully understand is much easier, and faster, and more fun.
stop being a twat. This is the only part of this post I find issue with, to be clear. I hope you'll view this post with full clarity.
I'm telling you if you actually care, dig deeper.
this isn't about you or me as persons. This is words on a screen telling you if you're interested in the topic, dig deeper.
If you don't care I also don't care. There is no harm in not being familiar with every single fossil to ever come out of mongolia. Or anywhere for that matter.
Why do you have to be like this? Do you have a superiority complex or something? Why do you think I wouldn't be perfectly capable of deciding how far into such a topic I want to delve on my own? Why do you assume I have a surface-level understand, and that you're "teaching" me? These are rhetorical questions, I don't actually want you to respond here. Just think about it, dude.
>understand
*understanding
that's what I get for not proofreading
>display some obvious ignorance of both dinosaurs and yourself.
>why do you think I'm ignorant?
kek
>I don't actually want you to respond here.
I don't doubt that at all.
Why do you have to have the last word? Why do you think I'm the one displaying ignorance when you've literally agreed to everything I've asserted? Why the smug attitude?
>And you assume you're smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. This doesn't require any particular response from me.
>Why do you have to have the last word? Why do you think I'm the one displaying ignorance when you've literally agreed to everything I've asserted? Why the smug attitude?
rhetorical questions?
you spent several days trying to politely tell me why my opinion is wrong.
but you immediately become offended and drop the politeness if I suggest that there are factors you're not considering.
you are the twat you think me to be. You have the superiority complex you accuse me of. And not once have you honestly questioned your own knowledge.
I on the other hand have taken every one of your failures and asked myself if I am also making them. This is how we differ. The ignorant are extremely confident, while the knowledgeable question themselves constantly. It's funny. A joke you don't seem to get.
>This is how we differ.
conversely, we are quite similar in that neither of us looks in the mirror and likes what he sees.
that's the paleoschizo's genius. Not being wrong, but being our mirror.
>you spent several days trying to politely tell me why my opinion is wrong.
>1 day and 2 hours ago
I didn't read the rest of your post because I think you still somehow think I'm somebody else. That's the only way that statement makes sense.
>That's the only way that statement makes sense.
so when 'somebody' calls subadult dinosaurs babies it's obvious hyperbole, but if I call a day several days that's to be taken literally?
not being sarcastic, just curious how you gays communicate. It's a bit odd.
>so when 'somebody' calls subadult dinosaurs babies it's obvious hyperbole,
You're doing it again. I never said that. You must be thinking of someone else. It's reasonable, considering how autistic these threads evidently are.
>It's reasonable, considering how autistic these threads evidently are.
In my limited experience it's very rare to find a person that uses expert lingo but lacks the formal education in science that teaches to first rigorously question your own knowledge and opinions.
to find several such people in such an obscure corner of the internet is fabulous. I don't ID users by their knowledge, but by their gaps, lapses, and lacunae. If you are not all one person, we have been blessed with a near-miraculous assemblage of highly qualified technicians without a shred of self-reflection or curiosity. Not impossible, just very fortunate.
wow you're a modern philosopher dude, how interesting. Yeah so unlikely, not like what you consider "expert lingo" to just be normal words that are accessed by regular hobbyists on the topic. No sir, I'm just pretending to be someone else this whole time and you're the only other person in the thread (until you heel-turn and tut at me and say "ah no I'm so above it all that I acknowledge I might be wrong teehee")
>(until you heel-turn and tut at me and say "ah no I'm so above it all that I acknowledge I might be wrong teehee")
beginning to understand science. Perhaps not practice it, but understand it at least.
no academic would see uncertainty as a weakness. That's dogma.
If you are a mere hobbyist as the paleoschizo certainly is, then I will tell you- again- there are multiple sites in the Flaming Cliffs that have produced protoceratops bones with tooth marks from velociraptor, and no sites that have produced the reverse.
>beginning to understand science. Perhaps not practice it, but understand it at least.
I'm not "beginning" to, I'm pointing out your moronation.
>no academic would see uncertainty as a weakness. That's dogma.
You're attempting to apply some decadent non-philosophy to a non-discussion on a board on Wauf. This is anti-intellectualism.
>If you are a mere hobbyist as the paleoschizo certainly is,
what is this even supposed to mean? Are you seriously trying to argue something this intransitive? No, of course not, you'll be nonchalant and detached as always, smugly confident that you're more intelligent than me due to your waxing and whinging.
>then I will tell you- again- there are multiple sites in the Flaming Cliffs that have produced protoceratops bones with tooth marks from velociraptor, and no sites that have produced the reverse.
uhhh dude are you having a dissociative episode? You never even said this itt at all, let alone to me specifically.
>- again-
dude you REALLY need to check your superiority complex. You are proving to everyone reading this that you're incapable of absconding from your stance. Which is pretty funny looking back to you accusing me of similar, but whatever.
>You never even said this itt at all, let alone to me specifically.
>There's a lot of fossils of protoceratops that got eaten by velociraptor, but no cases of the reverse that I'm aware of.
You think that you saying
>Velociraptors ate protoceratops
is the same as
>there are multiple sites in the Flaming Cliffs that have produced protoceratops bones with tooth marks from velociraptor, and no sites that have produced the reverse.
? Because one is an assertion, and the other is a source citation. Not to mention that the context between the two are very different... The former being a tacit statement that I acquiesced to
>But, if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree.
and the latter being a random source cited after... I guess randomly??? I literally didn't even say anything related to it in that post. And again, prior in the thread I had already agreed with that assertion. I'm going to go over this again very carefully to make sure there is no confusion:
>At one point, you state that velociraptor ate protoceratops.
>At a later point, I say that velociraptor ate protoceratops.
>Then, several posts after it's clear the discussion of protoceratops' and velociraptor's ecological relations, you post a source that you claim to have brought up before and that I ignored.
>I claim you said nothing of the sort, because I did not recall and could not find any such statement prior (relating to it being a source, because I believed that you were saying I had dismissed something you said with regards to their ecological relation being documented, which is untrue)
>when in reality you stated this for seemingly no reason, because it was something I agreed with you on, and something that was not relevant to the post in question
Which, frankly, is bizarre behavior! I don't really get it. It's not very conducive to a conversation, and doesn't seem like a coherent thought process led to it.
No, I'm not "paleoschizo", as I've maintained this whole time. I don't understand why you think so. I'm not sure you actually do think so.
>I'm not sure you actually do think so.
I don't at all.
he thinks you're either me or my wife. Which would be a weird suspicion even for someone with multiple personalities and even if we assume that disorder really exists.
No, I think you me and him are just three extremely similar people. All here for exactly the same reasons.
>I'm not paleoschizo, I just look, sound, and act exactly like him.
>so there
excellent. Thank you for your time today. It has been informative.
>- again-
was a hint to go back and check your knowledge. I already knew you didn't read the comment because of this
>But, if it is given that velociraptor was a major predator of protoceratops instead of an incidental one, then I would agree.
I kept dropping hints to see if you'd check your knowledge. I checked it several times myself just to make sure I wasn't being ignorant in public - again. I do that a lot because I don't read every word of every comment I respond to. How you react to being told you're mistaken is more interesting to me than the actual mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. That's why a certain amount of uncertainty is useful.
Sorry for the gotcha, but I did try to warn you.
>This is not the case for animals like this either
no? Are we talking Komodos or velociraptors or both here?
you're mixing me and the other anon up, I haven't said a single thing about komodo dragons, you self-absorbed moron.
>No, I think you me and him are just three extremely similar people.
I suppose so
>All here for exactly the same reasons.
and I certainly hope not. I'm out.
>you're mixing me and the other anon up, I haven't said a single thing about komodo dragons, you self-absorbed moron.
you're full of fun irony today
>you're mixing me and the other anon up, I haven't said a single thing about komodo dragons, you self-absorbed moron.
I am not and it was very self-absorbed and a bit moronic of you to think I was.
>I certainly hope not
You're here to teach, not learn. I confess to the same failing, and the schizo obviously doesn't want to learn anything. At almost no point in any of these threads does someone say, "gosh that's really interesting! Thanks for teaching me a thing!"
because everyone here fancies themselves somewhat of an expert, and certainly not a student. Despite the fact that real experts are also students.
>I'm out.
saves both of us some embarrassment I suppose.
>I am not
Yes you are. And before you try to guess which one I am, don’t
The post was directed at 2 different anons
it doesn't matter which of the 2 anons you are
if you think both replies were directed at you, then you are being a self-absorbed moron.
>cute Dendrolagus
Okay, I'll admit, SOME rats are okay.
>hooked blades
How is a boline not like a fishing hook? Which is more like a raptor claw?
These are both blades, albeit the one on top is rather dull. Claws are oval in cross-section and the bottom is not sharp, only the point. Literally hook-shaped. This is a very poorly designed tool for cutting. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
Or
>dig deeper
Ironic coming from a guy criticizing fossil interpretations he doesn't understand because all he does is fap to Allosaurus all day.
He does. Also he's a drunk.
4702791
Wew lad, so glad paleoprostitute got to troll the discussion so she gets attention. No (You) though.
Don't respond to it. It just makes it troll harder.
Ah the puppet master at work lol. Your life is an animu.
>Or dental comparisons of various unrelated herbivores
Honestly I don't think you understand these. Your comments on anything other than Theropods are sus as frick.
The one you're arguing with is "paleoNPC". He's the old paleontologist. He likes to doublespace and aggressively argue while drunk.
>Longisquama died on top of the same plant every time.
You're a complete idiot. There is only ONE Psittacosaur ever found with "quills" and even mainstream paleontologists have noted that this is odd since other Psittacosaurs have been found with integument but no quills. And there is only ONE Longisquama fossil that actually features an animal. The rest are just fronds of what are pretty obviously just plants. You are correct that this constant, insistent portrayal of Ceratopsians as omnivores is fricking stupid.
not to mention hadrosaur teeth are quite different from the rest of dinosauria, being very specialized for battery chewing, while ceratopsians had a much more basal and less complicated method of mastication
>hadrosaur teeth are quite different from the rest of dinosauria, being very specialized for battery chewing,
you've literally never seen a hadrosaur tooth, have you?
He's correct about this though. Although, if you want to be a reddit pedant, technically Hadrosaurs "sliced" their food rather than "chewed" it, but thank god I'm not a reddit pedant and I typically just say chew.
I'm "paleoschizo". You can always tell when I'm posting because I post images and links to back up my claims and when pressed if I didn't, I'll do it in response. I don't believe in just making shit up. If I have my own pet theories, I couch them in exactly those terms. I'm honest. That's precisely what pisses everyone off. Not just here, but in mainstream academia. Modern science is predicated on spreading bullshit to advance your career. While I sometimes work in science-adjacent fields, I always make sure to avoid anything too "mainstream" so I don't have to put up with that shit. Only amateur scientists ever tell the truth about their field because their paycheck doesn't depend on lying to advance various agendas. That's the great heresy of our age.
>while ceratopsians had a much more basal and less complicated method of mastication
or none at all.
using big words and latin binomials or museum specimen numbers makes a person look smart for about 5 seconds until they manage to prove they know the jargon but don't understand the meaning. It's funny, but not in a lol sort of way. More of a "that person is really interested in the topic but too lazy to learn the basics" sort of way. Autism is funny because it produces paradoxical results. The guy that knows everything there is to know about polishing intake manifold ports but doesn't know how to drive sort of funny. The guy that can name every part of a camera but never takes any pictures sort of way. Not laugh out loud funny, just an interesting and amusing paradox.
Y'all act like these animals didn't scrap man.
I see this exchange as equivalent to this video
if the warthog got a hold of the leopard in its jaws and they died like that. Look at the damage the leoopard did with its hind paws. Those claws aren't even as sharp as the ones on its forelimbs since they're used to kick off the ground when they sprint and they still ripped the warthogs thighs and stomach open. The protoceratops would have been losing blood at an insane pace had the raptor been successful and avoided the beak.
Sure MPC-D 100/25 was in a shitty situation, but I don't think it's coincidence that it's toe claw managed to hook right into MPC-D 100/512's neck during the struggle, particularly when that's the most lethal place on the body to stab into.
Attacking the neck with the toe claw from above, behind, or even the side seems like the best way for a Velociraptor to take down a Protoceratops, again like a sort of foot-fang, and the fact that MPC-D 100/25 actually did this, even under unfavorable circumstances, supports this.
The only ones I've seen depicting a claw below the belly are bad reconstructions; MPC-D 100/25 had it's left claw in the neck, and it's right claw was against the ground.
>The only ones I've seen depicting a claw below the belly are bad reconstructions
did you work preparing or excavating the thing?
Did you?
I posted photos of the actual fossil, and you can account for both of MPC-D 100/25's legs in the photo on the left. Again, the only examples I've seen of the legs not in this position are reconstructions depicting a complete frill for MPC-D 100/512.
>Also it couldn't slash since it had no serration
>Yes.
this is unknown.
the bone is not the claw. It may have been serrated. It was certainly much larger than the bone indicates.
>I don't know enough about Proceratops neck mobility to say
velociraptor had one foot in its belly, the other below the neck.
One arm was in its mouth, and the other was behind the frill in the neck.
two or three of these were potentially lethal.
>the bone is not the claw.
Obviously.
>It may have been serrated.
Is there a single vertebrate with serrated claws? I know a couple invertebrates, but I'm not aware of any vertebrates.
>Is there a single vertebrate with serrated claws?
several but I'd have to go to archives to find references. We've had this thread at least a dozen times and it's not easy to keep track of sources and esoterica posted over the years.
not that it matters since once I post it again everyone will say, "that's interesting," and then a year later be asking the exact same questions again.
>not that it matters since once I post it again everyone will say, "that's interesting," and then a year later be asking the exact same questions again.
Obviously, this place does have a fair amount of turnover and my memory of minutiae isn't any better than yours. If that's your barrier to entry on this question, I hope you're hanging in there alright because that doesn't seem to have ever stopped you in the past.
Anyways, the only thing I could find that some people call serrated is the pectinate claw of certain birds of prey (like barn owls), though as you can see, this isn't exactly a flesh cutter as much as it is a multitool.
>this place does have a fair amount of turnover
lol
the only thing I could find that some people call serrated is the pectinate claw of certain birds of prey (like barn owls), though as you can see, this isn't exactly a flesh cutter as much as it is a multitool.
last time I found a much better examination of serrations in predator claws, might have been a youtube paleontologist. I was drunk though and I'll have to repeat the search to hunt it down.
though again, bears, cats, and birds of prey all slash flesh without serrated claws.
You and I are here forever, but some people go and some people replace them.
I'm not going to deny that overcoming the young's modulus of flesh opens a cut, the arguments are just becoming too reductionist, I think the "hooked claws aren't flesh cutters" argument was initially aimed at the popular impression of dromeosaurs kicking at unengaged prey like a Bond villain with a shoe knife (as in Dr, Grant's 7 foot turkey speech). Especially since we're not talking about a 50 kg cat bullying a 25 kg pig, but a 20 kg animal attacking a 100 kg one.
Obviously a claw that hooks into flesh will tear it with concerted effort, you can rip flesh with your blunt human fingers, never mind something with a sharp claw, but do they have to restrain and subdue the animals before cutting it open with your claws, and if they do, how are they doing so?
Yeah I think the idea of raptors running up on prey and then disemboweling it with some well placed kicks before backing off is a bit absurd.
and to be fair that's exactly the scenario that was examined and deboonked by various mythbuster type films. Though they ignore the fact that an animal can exert forces well in excess of its own body weight by say, kicking against momentum or digging in and driving the foot down hard.
What seems a lot more likely is as we both said, anchoring onto or climbing up the side of the animal and kicking downward repeatedly. Even then the 'strategy' may not be disembowelment, rather that might just be something that happens sometimes as it does with large cats and bears. Not really what they're going for, but not a bad outcome for them when it happens. I'd guess it's more of a side effect of climbing up the animal, as often happens with lions and their prey.
either way, I sincerely doubt they employed one single strategy in every situation, and the one good fossil we have of one hunting shows the animal engaged with all of its limbs, probably using the tail and head to counterbalance. If anything I'd expect the head to be engaged in most cases as well since it provides the firmest anchor for gripping and ripping. The toe claw would seem to be just one of several tools in the kit, though if they climbed animals it could certainly do some damage on the way up. Probably capable of spilling the guts of the prey, though that's not always the best way to immobilize an animal quickly.
>that's not always the best way to immobilize an animal quickly.
this is a favored method among canids that usually disembowel ungulates using perineal ripping. They often wind up chasing an animal for miles before shock and blood loss down the animal to the point where they can begin to eat it. Raptors are certainly built for miles of running, but that's not a common strategy among hypercarnivores.
komodo dragon strategy might work better, just injure the animal and wait a few days, but that seems a bit sluggish and lazy for something built like a raptor.
>but that seems a bit sluggish and lazy for something built like a raptor.
Given that not even Komodo dragons hunt like that I'd say so
Here's the problem with the raptor toe knife theory in a nutshell: geometry. It is not unknown what the ideal shapes are for tools. A recurved blade is best for slashing. That's why a katana is this shape. A straight sword can also slash, but is less efficient at it. But we have a word for a NON-blade shaped implement that is DEcurved and ends in a mostly rounded cross section sharp point. It's called a hook. And and can you guess what it's for? Can you guess what it's explicitly NOT for?
>explicitly NOT for
Maybe explicitly isn’t the best word choice when you’re also mentioning tools. We do use gimmicky hooked blades for “unzipping” a deer carcass.
I'm heading off to a party, so if I find the reference I'm remembering- and I remembered it correctly- it will probably be tomorrow or longer.
iirc I was just hunting info on length of keratinous claws compared to the bone of the ungual, and encountered a blog or video that also discussed serrations in extant predators. It's in the archives I suppose, and that might be the easiest way to find it.
I'll look for it later if you don't want to. It's not important I don't think. Enjoy your evening.
>Enjoy your evening.
Likewise.
What a trip from this post on. Sometimes I think threads are doing something interesting and are on a productive track and then I go away for a day and come back to a housefire.
>on a productive track
not only has every idea itt except one been published before, but all of them except one have been posted in previous versions of this thread before. If you check archives you'll see we have this exact same thread once a month.
the only new idea to come out of this hot mess is that the claw evolved to sell toys millions of years in the future. Which is interesting in an existential sort of way. Not sure how to profit off the idea though.
Obviously not productive as in creating something new or pushing the boundaries of science, but at least a decent informative thread.
Maybe it feels like groundhog day for you, but while there's been posts here about this in the past that had more or less successful discussion (mostly less), the one from the 22nd of December that you've screenshotted the archive search for literally had 2 frog pics and a "bump" as the only three replies, this hardly like /k/ where the shills will repost, post for post, threads from as little as a week before and then delete it when someone notices.
>literally had 2 frog pics and a "bump" as the only three replies
because these threads die when I ignore them
and the paleoschizo dies inside when I ignore him.
This isn't some new huge crowd of people discussing an interesting topic. It's the same 3 people rehashing the same shit they've been talking about for literal decades.
>because these threads die when I ignore them
Honestly this thread was doing fine until you two started your gay little dance
He was participating before the gay dance started.
If we want a hypothesis that pleases everyone, I suggest as follows:
Protoceratops was fond of eating a certain type of grass that looks a lot like quills. Velociraptor grew quills on its arms from specialized quill knobs. Those quills looked like the grass that Protoceratops liked to eat. Velociraptor would hide in the quill grass with just its arms exposed, waving them lasciviously until Protoceratops took the bait and chomped down on the quill arm. Then Velociraptor would leap out of the quill grass and tickle the Protoceratops mercilessly with its specialized tickling claws until it finally yelled "I submit!" and they'd both have a good laugh and enjoy a picnic of fresh quill grass because before the flood God didn't let dinosaurs eat each other. Sadly the Protoceratops had tuberculosis and died on top of his quill grass. None of them had feathers or anything like feathers, and they're only chinese fossils by some accident of modern conquest so you can believe they're real even if other chinese fossils are obvious fakes.
The End.
not that it matters, since serrations certainly aren't required to slice flesh. Large cats and birds of prey shred meat and skin without serrated claws.
so the whole question is an aside based on a false premise. It's not relevant at all unless you take seriously the mythbusters style crap videos saying raptor claws can't tear flesh.
I can literally not imagine a more poorly designed killing strategy.
>Think like a fang on their foot.
Fangs are not this curved.
Not the predator, but it IS winning. Or was, until they were both buried in a sandfall.
Because you're a featherhomosexual.
>but I don't think it's coincidence that it's toe claw managed to hook right into MPC-D 100/512's neck during the struggle
You don't think it had anything to do with the raptor trying to kick the Protoceratops' head off of its arm (and failing)? This raptor isn't hunting the Protoceratops, like I said in the other thread. It's trying to fight it off and failing fricking miserably. You don't hunt prey on your back.
>mythbusters style crap videos
>PHYSICS IS WRONG! JURASSIC PARK IS RIGHT!
Oh boy. This from the guy saying that birds of prey and cats are "slicing" their prey with their claws. Have you never seen an eagle eat? They're not butchering hogs into select cuts before dining, you moron. Kind of weird to be the one on the opposite side of Jurassic Park for a change. I'm not surprised it's dealing with theropods since theropodgays will make up an entire fanfiction canon about the giant chickens. Really weird you're trying to claim that claws of living animals that are well known to be used for restraining prey are actually for tearing them up instead. Also, egrets kill with their beaks, not their feet.
>Pack hunting again
Why is this hard for you to grasp? Packs can hunt larger prey. Solitary animals tend not to (not successfully anyway).
>You don't hunt prey on your back.
That's literally what the leopard in
is doing. Its not farfetched to believe that raptors like MPC-D 100/25 would have employed similar strategies of latching onto and eviscerating their prey like every other predator ever since the development of quadrupedal herbivores 298 million years ago. Arguing "slicing" vs "restraining" is just semantics. The main killing action birds of prey employ when hunting larger animals is to hold on while the struggles of said animal against their talons opens up the wounds further. They eventually bleed to death or become catatonic due to the sheer amount of pain inflicted. Remember that dromaeosaurs have an entire mouth full of teeth, two forelimbs with claws that never touch the ground and are therefore never dulled, and powerful legs with two gigantic sickle shaped claws that also never touch the ground. Wolves take down bison with nothing but their mouthful of teeth. Big cats are dromaeosaurs' only analogue in terms of volume of weapons. These things were absurdly deadly. Dinosaurs are still the most physically advanced vertebrates to ever roam this earth.
>that never touch the ground and are therefore never dulled
not how claws work. They grow continuously, so if you're not grinding them down on something they'll eventually reach the ground.
also grinding them down sharpens them.
>not even Komodo dragons hunt like that
all predators hunt like that. Maybe not on purpose, certainly not all the time, but they all do it. Komodo dragons do it more often than faster mammalian and avian carnivores.
>all predators hunt like that
The chances of finding injured prey days after the initial attack without it already being cleaned up by other predators is pretty slim
>The chances of finding injured prey days after the initial attack without it already being cleaned up by other predators is pretty slim
This. I think the only reason it kind of works for komodos is because they're the only large predators on their island.
It probably works for Komodos even less than just about any other predator since there's so many in such a small area. Literally any scent of blood and they start arriving in numbers within a minute or two, by the time the original Komodo who injured the prey shows up its probably already been completely consumed
the original attacker is going to be first on that blood trail
not that it matters since they feed according to social hierarchy based on size. So it's not really a matter of who gets there first. A dragon could make a clean kill and still not end up getting any of it.
>the original attacker is going to be first on that blood trail
Not if its been days since the initial attack like you say
>A dragon could make a clean kill and still not end up getting any of it.
Any individual large enough to subdue a prey animal like a deer is going to be big enough to hold its own in contesting the meal
>Not if its been days since the initial attack like you say
what happened to the smell of blood attracting animals from all around within minutes?
does that magically not include the animal that drew the blood in the first place?
>what happened to the smell of blood attracting animals from all around within minutes?
what happened is you apparently believed the old timey meme of Komodos waiting for days for prey to keel over
>does that magically not include the animal that drew the blood in the first place?
yes, it would. The point is not many predators are going to be able to re-acquire prey they injured days earlier unless they got insanely lucky
>what happened is you apparently believed the old timey meme of Komodos waiting for days for prey to keel over
it's hard to keep up, first they had a bite that induces sepsis, then they had a venomous bite.
both were attempts at explaining why they attacked animals just to let them wander off and die later.
later scientists simply denied the behavior, negating the need for an explanation.
whatever the truth, all predators lose prey sometimes. Some predators release prey on purpose. I doubt velociraptor or deinonychus was letting prey go on purpose, but it would tend to explain how a murder chicken could go about killing animals the size of cows or pigs.
And they're not by any means the only example among dinosaurs that have been suggested to do this. But weirder ideas have been floated, and it's hard to say for sure which ones are right, if any of them.
>The point is not many predators are going to be able to re-acquire prey they injured days earlier unless they got insanely lucky
true, unless they're territorial, or social, or determined trackers.
>both were attempts at explaining why they attacked animals just to let them wander off and die later.
The septic bite theory was not based observations of Komodo dragons hunting typical prey, just stories from locals of them eating domestic water buffalo which usually don’t attempt to flee in the first place. There were no observations of dragons biting prey and then catching it again days later because that doesn’t happen. For starters even with the knowledge that they have true venom, that’s still not how they hunt since their venom is too weak to incapacitate prey to begin with
>Some predators release prey on purpose
Sure, but not for days. That would be something like a great white releasing a seal for a few minutes to bleed out
>true, unless they're territorial, or social, or determined trackers
This is not the case for animals like this either
>Arguing "slicing" vs "restraining" is just semantics.
Congratulations on the most moronic post in the thread. Slicing and grabbing are totally different things. Anyone that has been fishing has sliced themselves with a hook at least once. Is that what hooks were designed for?
uhh, no
When I pin my dog down while we're wrestling, it will kick and scratch at me from underneath with its foot claws. If we got fossilized together, it could make some alien in 50 million years say that dogs used their hind feet as weapons when hunting prey.
But we know that is not something wolves do in the wild.
To rely entirely on an exceptional fossil to reconstruct the hunting methods of the animals is going too far.
>To rely entirely on an exceptional fossil to reconstruct the hunting methods of the animals is going too far.
which is why the thread exists.
scientists aren't confident relying on a single fossil that could indicate a lot of different scenarios. So they posit other ideas, like climbing/perching, climbing other animals, anchoring to other animals, raking the flanks of animals, holding small animals down, stuff like that. And unsurprisingly their interpretations of the organ fit their prior views on the animal. People like Feduccia and Paul and Chatterjee who see the animals as a type of bird tend to interpret the claw as useful for climbing trees and gripping branches. People that see the animal as a flesh grazer or parasite on living prey see the claw as useful for anchoring to animal skin. People who see the animal as a social hunter see the claw as useful for causing bleeding wounds or disembowelment.
all we know for a fact is that velociraptor very certainly ate protoceratops, and deinoneichus very certainly ate tenontosaurus and other deinonychus. How they accomplished this exactly is unknown. But speculations based on similar modern animals is easy enough.
Wauf is fun for reviewing this sort of stuff because the board represents the general public's ideas about stuff. Or at least the very autistic public's ideas.
For example the idea that dogs don't use their hind claws to kill. They may not usually use them, but that doesn't mean they never use them.
or the idea that the claw was flat on the underside or unserrated. These things aren't known.
or the idea that a claw that's flat on the underside or unserrated can't rip flesh. Scientists know that's not true.
or the idea that dromaeosaurs were too light to slash flesh with their claws. Scientists know this to be false right off the bat.
the other misconception is that the various interpretations are mutually exclusive. Just because a dog CAN use its hind claws to kill animals doesn't negate other uses such as digging or kicking dirt or traction when running or whatever. Just because a velociraptor CAN use its hind claws for gripping branches doesn't necessarily mean it didn't also use them to rake the flesh or prey, or climb large animals, or whatever.
Part of deboonking the mutual exclusion fallacy in the public mind is suggesting alternatives that are perhaps more or less likely than the public view. But that just means once the public is convinced that velociraptor claws CAN'T penetrate flesh, scientists are going to step in and say they could. This is a conversation science has with itself, and the autistic public that wants firm, dichotomous answers will find it frustrating because they want solid interpretations that exclude all alternatives. Which of course don't really exist in nature. Whatever the public thinks about nature, it is almost always either wrong or incomplete in scope. And that's fine. Nuance is lost on most people, including most people here. The idea that things can be more than one way at any given time is unsettling. Most people are simply not wired to approach reality from a state of mental uncertainty.
Ultimately the irritating thing about this thread to the participants is that the claw was almost certainly used for EVERY SINGLE BEHAVIOR listed in the thread (with the exception of selling future toys) as well as a few uses that haven't been listed (grooming, running in loose soil, roasting marshmallows over a campfire).
the question isn't what the animal used the organ for, it's what they used it for most often. And that remains unknown. That it had multiple uses is just assumed by anyone that looks at animals for more than five minutes.
dog hindclaws are perhaps not normally used to disembowel prey, but that certainly doesn't mean they can't disembowel prey, or that they never have or never will disembowel prey.
organs get used for pretty much anything they are capable of at some point or other in the millions of years they exist. Even if just by accident. Animals don't run around thinking "I can't use my hindclaws to kill things." They just try to kill things in any way they can, and sometimes that's going to include using hindclaws. Or elbows or whatever. Stuff happens, organs get used in lots of interesting ways.
This goes into the biggest problem the autistic public has: Teleology in biology
what was it USED for? What was its USE?
This is a teleological question, and while it is one scientists ask, we don't ask it rigorously. That's more of a public method of thought. Organs exist and find a use afterwards. Usually a lot of uses. The animal used it for some things, and those things were helpful enough to preserve the organ for future generations, but they weren't some firm teleological category. Organs that persist and spread apparently get used, and often for multiple purposes, but those purposes aren't law. The organ doesn't have a single use, and it won't go away just because that single imagined use is no longer needed. Usually a seemingly useless organ is just repurposed for some other new uses instead of going away. Because animals use whatever they have for whatever they can.
>Usually a seemingly useless organ is just repurposed for some other new uses instead of going away. Because animals use whatever they have for whatever they can.
this also implies that the organ may have had no particular use at all.
this doesn't sit well with adaptationists, but evolution is a process, not a state. Animals often get caught with relatively pointless organs that haven't yet gone away. Over a long enough time span animals will collect enough of these organs (become specialized, or derived) to the point that the animal itself goes extinct for lack of use of their specialized organs and lack of ability to change them.
This is the direct opposite of adaptation, and it doesn't sit well with those that only have a teleological, adaptationist understanding of nature.
Ultimately the idea that the claw had multiple uses, and maybe no use at all, doesn't fit the moron-tier console wars mindset of this board or the people discussing dinosaurs. People that build their entire personality around knowing a thing and defending it are always going to wind up fricked by nature because nature doesn't care what you think you know, or how strongly you feel about it. It's busy doing everything at once, and nothing in particular. Including spawning monkeys that will view it from different angles and then argue that their view is the only correct one.
>spawning monkeys that will view it from different angles and then argue that their view is the only correct one.
scientists very carefully avoid this.
I don't believe raptors used their claws primarily for climbing trees, but I certainly don't think the idea is moronic. It almost certainly happened at some point, probably lots of times. Just because I don't consider it the best or most likely use doesn't mean someone suggesting it is wrong or stupid. It would be wrong and stupid to discount the idea.
Just like it's wrong and stupid to say raptor claws COULDN'T tear flesh. Of course they could, it's just a question of how often they did.
even the flying emu kick attributed to jurassic park isn't entirely impossible, it's just a question of whether or not it happened often. It almost certainly happened sometimes, even if by accident.
The need to say these things are IMPOSSIBLE indicates a dogmatic defense of an idea against all others because the person holding the idea has built their personality around it. This is funny, adorable, and sad all at the same time. But ultimately brings us no closer to knowing a thing than when we started. Actual "gotcha" moments in science where a thing is suddenly and irrefutably proven are extremely rare. It's mostly just a discussion of what's possible. And a lot of stuff is possible.
>a lot of stuff is possible.
almost every use suggested itt is possible. Several of them are undeniable.
>almost every use suggested itt is possible. Several of them are undeniable.
and in the back of every scientist's mind is the default option, the null hypothesis-
perhaps it had no particular use at all.
Behold! A chicken!
Let's see how modern predators with sickle shaped claws hunt
oh...
>iTs tOo bIG
inherited from tree climbing ancestry and repurposed to hunt
Large talons with "locking" mechanism allowed them to climb onto and subdue prey. Small wings on the arms helped them keep balance by pushing against the air. From there raptors would begin to consume their prey alive in a similar manner to their modern descendants.
There's a few reasons why this works
>every instinct tells prey not to lie down on the ground when being attacked
>its hard for herbivorous quadrupeds with large guts to roll onto their backs and dislodge predators, doubly so given the high arched backs of most ornithischian dinosaurs
>with enough mass, falling onto the ground (even from a standing position) can be gravely injuring. Even something the size of a cow has to lie down carefully, and such care is impossible when being attacked.
>even if they do manage to dislodge the predator, its light enough to take no damage from a very telegraphed fall and just hop right back on
You realize both of these animals, fly, right?
>Lions
>Solitary
Is there a difference, functionally, between flying and being able to jump 7+ feet in the air while also having small wings to control and soften your fall? Don't be daft. I don't know why you keep on bringing up this >solitary thing whenever it is known, known that certain species of dromaeosaurs like deinonychus lived in family units, evidenced by multiple individuals of varying life stages being found at the same sites. There's also evidence of them consuming prey too large to take down on their own. Here's the paper that contains these findings.
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10172318
The paleontologists in this paper however, do not go as far as asserting these animals hunted in packs due to a difference between the analyses of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the teeth of adults and juveniles, which could indicate a different diet. Isotope analysis is extremely inconsistent though. You can find isotope analyses with results that could be interpreted to show that dinosaurs existed as little as 10,000 years ago. While this is obviously false it proves the unreliability of this method. The sample size is also incredibly small. Five adult and juvenile teeth respectively which could have come from only two individuals. Its impossible to know. Unknown behaviors like adults pre-chewing the food could even skew these results. Fact of the matter is they lived together. Deal with it.
the problem with even the family unit idea is that most or all of the deinonychus found in tenontosaurus death assemblages were cannibalized. They ate each other.
this is more like crocodile behavior, where several animals might gather at a large kill, but they're also just fine with killing and eating each other as well.
Absolutely. The difference is a flying animal can harass a terrestrial animal and escape back into the sky beyond retaliation. A jumping animal cannot. They are totally different strategies. Birds use these strategies specifically because they've unlocked the tool of flight. No non-flying animal would fricking dare unless they had some otherwise suitable strategy to feed on something 10x their size.
Idnt that a kikapoo or some sort? I believe they are near flightless birds and have a hilarious mating ritual. Didn't know they were fans of mutton. Tip top bird, Cheery o
Kea. You're thinking of Kakapo. They're similar but Kakapos are goofy herbivores.
To apply bleeding status to foe
stimulating your g spot
This. Plenty of modern birds that use their feet to rake or knead and massage or drum at the other’s gonads when they’re fricking. Part of that often just looks like the consequences of getting a good grip to get the butthole lined up, other times it looks more like a cat makin biscuits or the bird doing cute little tippy taps with just its toes. Depends on species, but there’s a surprising variety of different behaviors.
Of course you would know all the intimate details of how birds frick. Fricking feathergays are the worst. Worse even than normal furisraelites.
Anyone with chickens has to learn where not to touch a chicken and why unless they want their chickens to hornily follow them around everywhere.
just look how modern dinos use their sickle claws
me at the waiting room play set while my parents are talking to the pediatrician
>attacks with the beak, not the claw
hmmm...
>attacked by gigantic theropod
>it doesn't tear you to shreds or eat you whole
>it just picks you up with its mouth and throws you at the ground
>over and over you smash into the ground while the superpredator studiously watches how many times you bounce
>you lose track of how may distinct surfaces the animal slams you at and you feel every single bone in your body turned into gravel as you fade into darkness
Birds are not dinosaurs
Yes they literally are dinosaurs.
>SO HUMANS IS WORMS HUH
No its closer to saying humans are placental mammals.
Dinosaurs where created on a different day. Read the Bible and heed GODS word.
Jews and chinachads are smarter than christians so ill believe them instead ok bye
name a feature of birds no dinosaur has.
Feathers.
Congrats this is now a bird
Toothless beaks
This is unironically a good point and goes back to the theory that some dinosaurs may actually be birds like Ornithomimosaurs and Oviraptorosaurs.
Concavenator only has scales. This is what happens when you listen to "muh quill knobs" bullshit.
>No impressions of any kind of integument were found near the arm, although extensive scale impressions were preserved on other portions of the body, including broad, rectangular scales on the underside of the tail, bird-like scutes on the feet, and plantar pads on the undersides of the feet.
I posted it as funbait and feathergays still failed.
>posts disinfo
So the bones have evidence of an animal with feathers and scales and there are no feathers because you say “muh” before the evidence… ok.
Why does it hurt you to admit that they were just like real animals
>gallimimus is a bird
>A keel
Moa are dinosaurs
>A pygostyle
Makes Archaeopteryx a dinosaur despite not lacking a sternum entirly like moa
>A tarsometatarsus
T.rex is a bird
>A tibiotarsus
Heterodontosaurus is a bird
if you actually read the papers about conc youd know the latest consesus is that the arm bones were warped during preservatiuon and the latest reconstructions put the quill knobs exaxtlty where quill knobs ould have been and regardless of that see above. By your own sides arguments the clearly feathered Archaeopteryx would be a dinosaur...
Lol you idiot. That only makes "muh quill knobs" an even MORE untenable position, because we know for a fricking FACT that concavenator had scales on its body. Additionally, the few dinosaurs that HAD feathers like Ornithomimosaurs DO NOT HAVE scales on the undersides of their tails. That's a very strong indicator Concavenator had zero feathers. Yet it still has "quill knobs". It's almost like "quill knobs" don't mean shit.
Why do you have to get drunk and troll online. Get your drinking habit under control.
>having scales on its body precludes feathers on its arms
You've been told why.
Birds have scales on their legs and feathers on their body. Integument can vary. Amazing right? What was the why again?
>NO EVIDENCE I DONT LIKE IS FAKE
Oh right israeli women from china are beaming mind control into your brain to make you feel a phantom vegana. That’s why you’re always such a b***h.
>Can't read
>Literally responding to a post answering the question you're asking
This is a woman posting, right?
>ad hom
>ignoring content of posts and doubling down on incorrect assertions
This is a moron posting, right?
No you jumped to the conclusion that a dinosaur must either be entirly feathered or entirly scaled. Nothing you've stated stops Concavenator being otherwise entirly scaled and having quills on its arms. Like the evidence suggests.
this is where you fail at cladistics and excel at trolling. We have rules in place to prevent the backwards smearing of the clade. Some rules you broke:
1. Secondary loss of a diagnostic trait isn't counted to disqualify the taxon. A moa losing the keel doesn't matter so long as its ancestors had it. A whale losing its legs doesn't count as long as its ancestors had them.
2. A partly formed trait is not the same as the fully formed trait. The cannon bone of T. rex is not equal to the cannon bone of a sparrow.
3. A convergent gain of a trait is not treated as the same as the trait. A bat having wings is not the same thing as a bird having wings.
4. Diagnostic traits are treated as a group, such that having one or two may not be enough to place an animal in a taxon. All of the traits must be fully present in the animal or its ancestors.
Also of course whales are a type of fish just like birds are a type of dinosaur. Hope this helps with your understanding or trolling, whichever you're attempting here.
The problem with cladists is that they're fricking children that feel the need to tell everyone that whales are fish (but axchually, fish don't really exist). The Linnaean system already understood this. They just were mature enough to not drag it into every fricking conversation like they just got done watching a Kurzgesagt video.
This is you're problem. You're far too mainstream, even for the minor heresies you engage in. The Proceratosaurids aren't lumped into Tyrannosauroidea for any reason other than politics. The refusal to countenance political motivations as a real and major component of modern scientific fields is a failing that many possess these days, which is why everything is going to shit to begin with: because of both those who engage in political bullshit and those who work so hard to cover it up and try to convince everyone it isn't happening. One is just as bad as the other.
>you can't publish something you suspect to be true without also publishing some evidence that it might be true.
LOL have you actually been READING papers lately? Half the feathershit published is based in wild ass speculation with no hint of actual evidence.
Only dumbBlack person cladists think paraphyly is bad. And exactly ZERO cladists can explain why. It just is, okay? Reptiles are real. Fish are real. And objective reality declares this unambiguously. Deal with it.
Also when I say, e.g., that Tyrannosauroidea isn't diagnostic, I don't just mean that SOME of the diagnostic characters of Tyrannosauroidea overlap with the diagnosis of Allosauroidea,
but rather that animals are being assigned to Tyrannosauroidea based largely or entirely on overlapping diagnostic traits. Because with fossils we rarely have enough of the body for the entire diagnosis to come into play, and in fact there are no tyrannosauroids outside of Tyrannosauridae that are assigned based on the presence of ALL diagnostic traits of the clade. In fact most tyrannosauroids are assigned based on a suite of characters that largely or completely overlaps with allosauroids.
this is true of Concavenator as well. Though its position within Allosauroidea or Tyrannosauroidea doesn't matter since neither should have quill knobs. But that just points to a third option, which any scientist would immediately grasp, and several have blogged about at least in passing.
>that just points to a third option, which any scientist would immediately grasp, and several have blogged about at least in passing.
The third option being that Concavenator is neither an allosauroid nor a tyrannosauroid.
fourth option is Concavenator evolved quill knobs convergently
fifth option is the bumps on Concavenator's arms are not quill knobs.
sixth option is allosauroids had arm feathers and no other fossil has yet shown this.
The problem with all of these options getting published is very simple
you can't publish something you suspect to be true without also publishing some evidence that it might be true. And that evidence hasn't been found.
so scientists may suspect any of these options, or several of them, but without any evidence, that suspicion is not getting published.
A keel
A pygostyle
A tarsometatarsus
A tibiotarsus
Birds are dinosaurs, but dinosaurs are not birds.
Whales are mammals, but mammals are not whales.
A tiny offshoot of a tiny offshoot got to diversify, that does not mean we get to extrapolate backwards with impunity, such as imagining bird like behaviors in dinosaurs, just as do not get to imagine bat like behaviors in andrewsarchus. It's a stupid passtime of 3rd rate paleonerds trying to make names for themselves.
Now, if only we were not cursed with only 3rd rate paleontologists it would not be so bad, but we are. So you will take your cooing and mating dancing dinosaurs and like it too.
Restraining prey most likely.
female raptors just liked it bros.
It was used to attack and bring down prey
>but HOW exactly?!?!?
Any way it could moron.
if you ask me all animals should have sickle talons
Sexual display.
Grabbin' and stabbin'
opening soda cans.
>be carnivore with giant meat hooks on your feet
>gosh guys I wonder what they used them for?
clown thread
Grappling. It's just a cat's declaw basically. They need it to just hook into the prey for a sec so they can bite it to death
What about Utahraptor claws? The shape is straighter. I have to assume that bigger dromaeosaurs would use different hunting tactics. I would think that a kick from a raptor the size of a polar bear would disembowel easily.
jump attacks
These would just kick and impale things like cassowary.
no way to know
Aww look they're hugging.
I feel like the shape of the claw and feet is suitable for both running and grappling.
Birds of prey have that opposable claw for grabbing onto prey or branches (raptorial)
Other theropods like carnosaurs have feet built for walking/running
Dromaeosaurs just opted to have both options
Anyone that thinks raptors were climbing trees by supporting themselves with a single toe is a goddamned moron.
Are you guys all ESL or just can't read?
that paper and the other scientists cited were talking about climbing up the sides of their prey.
not climbing trees, not climbing hills.
climbing the sides of their prey.
>Although a climbing/grappling function for the dromaeosaurid pedal digit II ungual during predation has been suggested, it may also have provided assistance during arboreal activity.
>The claw arc measurements for ground birds ranged from 52.2 to 77.6°, those of perching birds from 101.8 to 125.3°, and those of trunk-climbers form 129.5 to 161.6°
>That of Deinonychus antirrhopus possesses an inner arc measurement of 160°. Comparisons with extant birds therefore support a climbing function for this structure.
>The Velociraptor manual ungual modeled in this study possessed a claw arc measurement of 127°. It is likely that this claw arc angle would increase by 10–15% with the addition of a keratinous sheath, meaning the claw would fall comfortably within Feduccia's perching and trunk-climber bracket.
All your favorite dinosaurs lived in trees and ate pinecones.
Cope.
>Feduccia's perching and trunk-climber bracket.
If feduccia is right, they're not dinosaurs.
That's why dinosaur paleontologists mostly ignore him.
Feduccia actually has some good points and science needs heretics to get bad theories unstuck. He's absolutely right about the digit identity being fricky in birds compared to Theropods. The mainstream rebuttal is "well it just happened, okay?" lol
climbing aid
To disembowel sassy little butterball children
From what I've read, to stab their prey to death
I think thats bullshit, it'd be a pretty inconvenient way of killing.
If i were to guess I'd say its a similar purpose to chicken spurs, mostly sexual competition between males eith some defensive use.
You sound like a moron. It had hooked, retractable talons to disembowel prey. These animals were made for jumping. They’d jump onto the side of a bigger animal and kick kick kick kick kick.
Chicken spurs? Chickens aren’t carnivorous predators hunting big game.
/thread
>You sound like a moron
There is no reason to be rude, thread asked a question I am providing a perspective.
>It had hooked, retractable talons
Hmm? I which way were they retractable? Every image shows them fully exposed, they don't retract into anything like a cat's does.
>They’d jump onto the side of a bigger animal and kick kick kick kick kick
You'd think if that was an effective hunting strategy in the slightest then you'd see an animal in the modern age that uses the same killing method.
>Chickens aren’t carnivorous predators hunting big game.
I didn't say they were, so I don't know why you've said this. Maybe you misunderstood, I am saying i think the claws were used in a similar fashion to chicken spurs, not that they're literally the same thing.
The same fashion as in jumping kicks for dominance fights with other males or defence from predators.
I just can't see something like that being more effective for killing prey than a mouth full of teeth, especially since they are bipedal and their body plan puts their legs very far from whatever would be in front of them. I am no biomechanics expert but just mentally that seems like an unbalanced movement for them. Though the one anon that suggested it was for holding onto their kill while they bite it to death sounds like a good hypothesis, I like that idea.
>they don't retract into anything like a cat's does
NTA, they didn't retract into anything, but there's a body of evidence that suggests the offensive claws were held off the ground while walking, and are only occasionally recorded being used in soft mud and on steep angles.
>Skeletal information shows that dromaeosaurids bear a retractable sickle-shaped claw on their second toe, which is held off the ground.
>Most other carnivorous dinosaur tracks show three forward-pointing toes, like a bird. But a raptor footprint usually only records two complete toes and sometimes just the base of a third.
The kicking/disemboweling hypothesis is a bit controversial. There's some evidence that during hunting, the claws were more for capturing and controlling the prey rather than killing directly.
>https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20986
This study analyzed XRay scans to find out how strong the claws were, and how they were likely used.
>The maximum value of stress generated by the FEM under the assumed loading conditions, with a force of 400N, is around 60 MPa. This is much less than the typical range of values reported in the literature for the failure stress of extant claws of 150–200 MPa, indicating that it is reasonable to assume that the Velociraptor would have been able to support its weight on a very small contact surface while climbing.
>Ostrom noted that the recurved shape of the D. antirrhopus “killing claw” coincided with the axis of maximum force that could be delivered and concluded that it was adapted for penetrating the flesh of prey. Carpenter suggested that this morphology was able to provide a piercing function.
>This study supports both interpretations, but suggests this piercing ability did not facilitate the disemboweling of prey, but was instead involved in scansorial (climbing) behavior.
>The evidence suggests that the form and resultant function of the “killer claws” was adapted to assist prey capture.
CONT
CONT
>In the light of earlier experimental results and this study, it is possible to review the interpretation of the unique fossil (
no way to know) of a Velociraptor and Protoceratops
>Thus, it might be expected that if climbing behavior was important in dromaeosaurids, a functional switch leading to a more important role for the flexor muscles would have occurred
>Flexor tendon adaptations in the foot of Velociraptor might have contributed to the fatal embrace. The tendons that flex the toes of extant perching birds are modified so that they lock the foot in a tight grip.
>This grip is a result of specialized tendons that possess a ratchet-like mechanism in their sheaths
>This allows birds to relax and sleep whilst perched, without releasing their grip and falling. The weight of the bird is enough to engage this elegant system.
>The underlying flexor tendons on the feet of dromaeosaurs might have possessed a similar ratchet-like “locking” mechanism on the second toe. The possession of such flexor tendons would have been an energy-efficient way of countering the effect of the claw's retractor ligament.
>They would have provided a useful adaptation for climbing and holding onto their prey, using gravity and limb position to assist the claw flexor and gripping function. The mechanism would then rely upon the dromaeosaur lifting its foot to release the underlying tendons to allow the retractor ligament to free the recurved claw from its prey;
>a dromaeosaur trapped/hugged by its prey would be unable to do so.
People have tried to conflate the work of cassowaries for raptors. People forget that animals like bears and cassowaries have STRAIGHT claws. These are used for slashing. Animals with curved claws such as cats and raptors use them for restraining prey, not cutting other animals. Mechanical studies have already pretty unambiguously shown that raptor claws can't slice properly. The proper shape for a slashing claw would be REcurved, like a katana, not decurved like a talon.
The conclusion that raptors were gripping tree branches like birds is twaddle. Bird feet are totally different from raptor feet and they use their toes differently.
That's not what it said. You must love the taste of carpenter's dick. He's constantly wrong but you're always jumping to his defense. Also raptors didn't hunt prey that was larger than them generally. So this doesn't even make sense. Even in Tenontosaurs, they typically targeted the young.
Right from the abstract:
"Enhanced climbing abilities of dromaeosaurid dinosaurs supports a scansorial phase in the evolution of flight."
They're clearly talking about climbing trees. A quick ctrl + f search reinforces this.
Wait, you actually think sickle-shaped claws are DESIGNED for "cutting"???
>they only hunted big game.
No they didn't, you moron. They also didn't hunt in packs, so hunting big game would have made no sense. And lions don't "gut their prey" with their claws. The bunny kick is a defensive move, not used for killing prey. Cats kill with their mouths, typically by cutting the carotid artery or clamping the windpipe.
*perching birds' feet, that is
>>they only hunted big game.
>No they didn't, you moron. They also didn't hunt in packs, so hunting big game would have made no sense.
Deinonychus antirrhopus is practically a Tenontosaurus specialist. The vast majority of Deinonychus specimens are found in the vicinity of Tenontosaurus specimens and Deinonychus traces (teeth and bite marks) are present more often than not when we find Tenontosaurus specimens. And not just the subadults.
Yes, we know from stomach contents and from isotope analysis that Deinonychus didn't feed in mixed aged groups (IE the young, the subadults, and the adults are not all eating the same thing), but that doesn't rule out similar age class Deinonychus working together, and even if we can't prove that they worked together, we know that the 70kg predators were taking down 1000 kilo herbivores, and frankly I find the idea that they did so alone to be less likely than the idea that they did so cooperatively.
>Deinonychus antirrhopus is practically a Tenontosaurus specialist.
Yeah, of babies.
>(teeth and bite marks)
Are these healed? Or merely present. We know Tyrannosaurs fed on Edmontosaurs and even fully grown torosauriform Triceratops because we have HEALED wounds from them present on these animals. If the wounds aren't healed, they could've just been scavenging. You are correct that they weren't taking down prey larger than themselves alone, because they most likely weren't taking it down to begin with. There is exactly as much evidence that Deinonychus was a pack hunter as there is that T. rex was: multiple remains found around watering holes.
After a quick review of Tenontasaurus bone pathology research, I can't find any high confidence healed bite mark from any predator. There's one published abscessed metacarpal bone where the author makes a throw-away remark mentioning that a possible source of the infection would have been a predator mouth, but the nature of the abscess (a Brodie abscess) means that there's not preserved tooth mark anyways.
why would you concentrate on that instead of the obvious lie in that post?
>Yeah, of babies.
You dumb gay.
Ok, if you lied about the age and size of the animals, why would anyone trust what you say about pathology?
I'm only answering you in case some utterly clueless lurker sees this comment. We all know you're a bot and replying to you is pointless for any other reason. The anon I was replying to knew what I meant.
>The anon I was replying to knew what I meant.
doubtful since tenontosaurus is by far the most common animal in its faunas, with a distant second being a larger and heavily armored ankylosaur. In addition to the fact that almost all deinonychus remains have come from tenontosaurus death sites, including animals of all sizes.
so unless you're proposing it was strictly a scavenger, or a cannibal, the only possible conclusion is that it hunted tenontosaurus, all of which were larger than it was, and most of which were much larger.
Well one thing is for certain: Deinonychus couldn't have behaved in a logical fashion for a predatory animal. No it must have only hunted in packs and killed fricking sauropods or only scavenged corpses. Yep! I don't even understand what purpose this post was created for.
You sound like a legit moron right now.
are you saying tenontosaurus is a sauropod?
It was extremely small even by hadrosaur standards. Still much larger than deinonychus.
>You sound like a legit moron right now.
coming from you that's a compliment.
No, that was slight hyperbole. Are you saying that Tenontosaurus is a Hadrosaur? Stick to theropods.
I threw away that part of the comment as hyperbole. Every predator will target dumb young animals when able, exaggerating this targeting by calling subadults babies is far less interesting than actually seeing if I could find some healed wounds.
>by calling subadults babies
interesting, but the deinonychus were also subadults.
I found the hyperbole far more damning than the lack of healed wounds on tenontosaurus. That sort of thing is extremely rare to find outside of theropods where they spent a lot of time biting each other but not killing.
I'm not interested in "damning". For as common as Tenontasaurus was and as common as its fossils are, the scanty amount of documented bone pathologies is far more interesting than rhetorical games.
>I which way were they retractable?
they retracted up from the ground or up and out of the meat they were stuck in.
>You'd think if that was an effective hunting strategy in the slightest then you'd see an animal in the modern age that uses the same killing method.
cats do something called a bunny kick.
Lions often leap onto their prey and clamp on with the mouth before gutting the animal with their legs.
>I just can't see something like that being more effective for killing prey than a mouth full of teeth,
it was far stronger than teeth. We find their teeth broken off at kill sites all the time. Not their claws. If their teeth were able to cut meat, the claws were even better at it.
> just mentally that seems like an unbalanced movement for them
unless they're holding onto the animal with arms, mouth, the other leg, and then using one leg to kick against the animal.
>the one anon that suggested it was for holding onto their kill while they bite it to death sounds like a good hypothesis, I like that idea.
they don't need a huge curved claw for that.
>Dromeosaurs do not hunt big game
they only hunted big game.
They're associated with 2 different prey animals, one is dozens of times heavier than them, the other is thousands of times heavier.
>it was for holding onto their kill while they bite it to death sounds like a good hypothesis, I like that idea.
It's also the only hypothesis directly contradicted by fossil evidence.
In the Fighting Dinosaurs specimen from Mongolia, the Velociraptor is attempting to grapple the Protoceratops with both hands and both legs.
The only part of her body that she's not using is her mouth. It's held far back away from the struggling animal.
They died in a dune collapse. If you were trying to disengage from a fight in these conditions, you would go from grappling to pushing off of, leaving your limbs in contact (note that the arm is being restrained by proceratops as well) but moving your head away from the animal you were struggling with.
pretty hard to move your head when it's buried in tons of sand. If it could move its head it wouldn't have died.
are we really armchair quarterbacking a dinosaur
maybe it was winding up a woodpecker snoutpunch powerattack when the dune struck
Nope, I'm saying what's preserved is the only thing we can say for sure was happening.
The raptor was grappling with all of its limbs. There were a few things it wasn't doing from the looks of it:
>tail slapping the protoceratops
>face humping the protoceratops
>biting the protoceratops.
Hey quick question, when cats are defending themselves, what posture do they adopt and how is it different from when they're trying to kill prey? Those Velociraptors were not hunting those Protoceratops. They were fighting for their lives (and losing), probably after invading Protoceratops nests or territory or something.
People really, REALLY want Jurassic Park raptors to be real, but they just weren't. They weren't like that movie depicts Dromaeosaurs AT ALL. They weren't pack hunters. They weren't using their toe talons as swords to bleed prey. And they got mogged by ceratopsians the size of shitbulls.
Dromeosaurs do not hunt big game
Okay, typically I defend Jurassic Park as being more accurate than modern paleomedia, but raptors were not climbing carnosaurs in packs and kicking the shit out of them.
Cassowaries have the same kind of claw and all they do is eat fruit and berries. Personally I believe that the Raptors used the claw as a way to latch onto sides of trees between flights. The bigger ones that didn't fly still had them even if they were mostly useless. Like how humans have five toes but we only use four. I think that's what they were for because I saw a drawing in a book one time that had a small Raptor on the side of a tree and it looked very sensible.
Cassowaries, as laid out previously, have very different claws. Their claws are basically straight and they really ARE for disemboweling.
Your fantasy headcannon raptors aren't real. Prehistoric planet is a cartoon. It's not real life.
>being found at the same sites
You mean watering holes? Yeah, just like T. rex.
>You mean watering holes?
what is taphonomy?
Something apparently no modern paleontologist is familiar with.
>EVERYTHING WE FIND IN THE ROCK IS BIOLOGY!
Cassowaries also walk on their claws, and they're not dealing with the same evolutionary pressures as their ancient hypercarnivore cousins. Maybe with enough time in a more hostile environment cassowaries would evolve isolated sickle shaped claws.
>You mean watering holes? Yeah, just like T. rex
Where is the paper for that, and does it account for observable phenomenon in the modern day, where multiple packs of the same species of animal will converge on and fight for a kill?
>not how claws work. They grow continuously, so if you're not grinding them down on something they'll eventually reach the ground.
Like a fricking babirusa? Are you just pretending to be moronic at this point? Idk how you could possibly reach that conclusion. You think cats just let their claws grow until they reach the ground? They actively sharpen them on trees and other surfaces, like ancient dromaeosaurs totally could have as well. Jesus frick try to think even a little bit abstractly.
>Where is the paper for that,
there's dozens of them, I think you posted one.
>and does it account for observable phenomenon in the modern day, where multiple packs of the same species of animal will converge on and fight for a kill?
It's been suggested, but there's no way of knowing at this time. Footprint evidence my be the best indication we have, and it does seem to support the possibility of social groups if not packs.
>They actively sharpen them on trees and other surfaces, like ancient dromaeosaurs totally could have as well
that's what I said, buttnugget.
>The chances of finding injured prey days after the initial attack without it already being cleaned up by other predators is pretty slim
yep, it sorta depends what other predators are around.
dromaeosaurs tend to be the dominant predators in their faunas at least by number. And they hunted animals large enough that if they got away, there'd still probably be enough to go around days later when they finally dropped.
>dromaeosaurs tend to be the dominant predators in their faunas at least by number.
This is highly variable. In later Cretaceous faunas they're almost always an afterthought.
>Where is the paper for that
Quick google search:
https://www.gbif.org/species/144102502
>Modern archosaurs (birds and crocodiles) and Komodo dragons typically display little cooperative hunting; instead, they are usually either solitary hunters, or are drawn to previously killed carcasses, where much conflict occurs between individuals of the same species. For example, in situations where groups of Komodo dragons are eating together, the largest individuals eat first and will attack smaller Komodos that attempt to feed; if the smaller animal is killed, it is cannibalized. When this information is applied to the tenontosaur sites, it appears that what is found is consistent with Deinonychus having a Komodo or crocodile-like feeding strategy. Deinonychus skeletal remains found at these sites are from subadults, with missing parts consistent with having been eaten by other Deinonychus.
Of course right after we have to hear from a chink once again trying to frick up paleontology by inserting agenda and low IQ.
>I think thats bullshit, it'd be a pretty inconvenient way of killing
Killing isn't the goal of most predators. They're usually just fine with immobilizing via shock, injury, and blood loss.
Disemboweling works fine, so does ripping big holes in an animal and waiting for it to fall down. Usually the meal is still alive when they begin eating it. They don't have time to wait for things to die every time. Gotta eat quick.