If this is true than T. rex is in between baboons and chimps in terms of intelligence
The pet and animal community.
If this is true than T. rex is in between baboons and chimps in terms of intelligence
>it's another episode of anon thinks more neurons=more smart and doesn't understand proportion to body size
dinosaurs are a fabrication of satanist pedophiles
Well, if God had provided us with dinosaurs, we wouldn't need to worship satan to get dinosaurs.
I prefer science.
Numerous issues. Mostly with the interpretation of the study, a few with the study itself.
>'Primate Levels' here refers to the total number of neurons, not the number of neurons relative to body size. Since the dinosaurs in the study are considerably larger than primates, the neurons per unit of body mass ratio is dramatically lower for dinosaurs. Consequence: Dramatically less intelligence in dinosaurs than in primates
>the author treated sauropod neural density as being in the ectoterm range despite the very study he cites with regards to ecto/endothermic growth patterns showing sauropods to be endotherms. This seems questionable.
>while estimating neuron densities based on metabolic activity is reasonable enough, it is very much a hypothesis, not a fact. Neuron densities could easily have taken a while to catch up to metabolisms. Supporting evidence would be needed
>this supporting evidence isn't very supporting. E.g. Tyrannosaurus brain structure, insofar as we can reconstruct it from its skulls, is more alligator- than bird-esque. Its encephalisation quotient is high when compared to extant reptiles, but low when compared to extant birds
>the study bases its estimates of neuron density on metabolic rates. But metabolic rates amongst dinosaurs varied wildly (again, shown in the very study on dinosaur metabolic rates this paper cites), and Allosaurus in the Jurassic had a significantly higher metabolic rate/body temperature than Tyrannosaurus in the Cretaceous. Nevermind ornithischia almost universally showing ectothermic metabolic rates (which this study acknowledges and thus gives ornithischia ectothermic neuron densities, mind).
Most of these aren't really issues with the paper itself (papers narrowly focussing on a single aspect and requiring other papers to form a complete picture are normal), my only real objection to the paper itself is its treatment of sauropods, which blatantly goes against the study's stated methodology because reasons.
But the interpretation thereof is, as is probably to be expected for dinosaurs and within popsci, wild. The 'Primate number of neurons' clickbait without mentioning relative body sizes doesn't help, of course (and I'll absolutely blame the study's authors for that one).
If viewed in conjunction with other papers, some of which this paper even cites as a major source, the end result is that theropod intelligence ranked somewhere between clever modern reptiles (alligators, varanids) and pretty dumb birds. Certainly nowhere near primates, which incidentally, every reputable institution keeps screaming about is nonsense, but popsci just won't shut up about clever girls.
Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton have a lot to answer for.
>but popsci just won't shut up about clever girls.
>Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton have a lot to answer for.
The 'clever girl' only makes sense with raptors and te hypothesis of them being pack hunters, cooperating and forming communities assuming they would work kinda like wolves. If popsci retards (and now paleo graduates spitting studies like the one in the OP) can't understand the difference between small raptors and other theropods thats on them.
There's actually no evidence for raptors being pack hunters. Quite the opposite. And they likely weren't that fucking smart.
>There's actually no evidence
There is, not a lot though. Just because turbonormies memed jurassic park into being more well known than science doesn't mean that everything there is completely baseless.
>And they likely weren't that fucking smart
No evidence for or against this, most likely we will never know.
>There is, not a lot though.
Pretty sure there isn't. There are a lot of dromaeosaur species and they're generally found alone.
>Pretty sure there isn't. There are a lot of dromaeosaur species and they're generally found alone.
Heres a modern study on the matter which cites the original from Ostrom (1969). https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10172318
Deynonichus (plural) were found near an ornitischian dinosaur an theres evidence they were feeding from it.
Its most probably that 1969 study that inspired JP dromeosaurs. As for evidence against pack hunting, its mostly that modern birds and
medium sized reptiles don't hunt in packs but if you're going to judge on evolutionary tree alone then its pretty much the same argument as the paper OP posted. I'd say both are plausible, but its difficult to know for sure with so little information.
>Deynonichus (plural) were found near an ornitischian dinosaur an theres evidence they were feeding from it.
Eh...monitor lizards do the same thing. They're not exactly pack hunters. They're just opportunistic.
>Eh...monitor lizards do the same thing. They're not exactly pack hunters. They're just opportunistic.
Yeah well you could argue a lot of theropods were scavengers or oportunistic on that fact alone. Not a good argument. Still I'm not stating pack hunting is true, I'm just stating that there is evidece that supports that theory and thats why it became vox populi even if it is not conclusive.
Here's the thing. If Dromaeosaurs were pack hunters, they should have spent enough time together that we'd eventually find Dromaeosaur herds from an ashfall or mudslide or flood event or something. We don't. We never have. The fossil group you're referencing is only associated with feeding. That evidence would be good enough to say Griffon Vultures are pack hunters. We know they're not. Packs don't only get together for edgy teenager comic book group murder shots.
>Dromaeosaur herds from an ashfall or mudslide or flood event or something
Pack HUNTERS don't form herds, they run smaller groups, that reduces the chance of finding herds like we have with ornitischians.
>That evidence would be good enough to say Griffon Vultures are pack hunters
Yes thats what I mean by 'both are possible' anon. Finding a group of specimens feeding from the same big animal both supports scavenging/oportunistic feeding and pack hunting.
Could you post the evidence? Not trying to be a dick but just saying "there is evidence" is not evidence.
I've already posted studies ITT, but I guess no one cares enough to read.
I scrolled all the way to the bottom instantly so I didn't see it, I'll check it out.
Again, foot tracks aren't any indicator of pack hunting unless they're of groups of the same species all traveling in the same direction. The Dromaeosaur prints in that paper are clearly different sizes all headed in different directions. These prints could have been accumulated over days.
>Pack HUNTERS don't form herds
I was dumbing down my language, AGAIN. Seems like no matter how stupid I make it pedantic NPCs will always try to argue fucking semantics.
>Yes thats what I mean by 'both are possible'
It could, which means it only tells us they're carnivores. We already know that. It can't be classified as evidence of pack activity.
>Reads the extract and the conclusion and discards everything else
>I was only pretending
>Since A, B includes C that means that only C is true and A and B are false
Go take an epistemology class please.
>As for evidence against pack hunting
No, the evidence against pack hunting is that Dromaeosaur skeletons are generally found solitarily. We actually have much more evidence for possible pack hunting in larger Theropods like Tyrannosaurs. But even that's suspect.
>Dromaeosaur skeletons are generally found solitarily
So since most specimens were fossilized alone they weren't forming packs? Huh, guess since we almost never find fossilized dinosaurs mating they also never mated. Also they are both fossils of some species of dromeosaurs found close together and tracks of several specimens.
>So since most specimens were fossilized alone they weren't forming packs
Not necessarily, but the evidence does lean in that direction. Dromaeosaurs are not terribly rare animals. Almost every Cretaceous fauna has multiple species. At least in the north. Not sure about the southern hemisphere.
>Huh, guess since we almost never find fossilized dinosaurs mating they also never mated
You know damn well why that's totally different, retard. As you've been told already, pack animals don't just get together to kill big herbivores for paleoart. They're together either always or for at least part of the year.
>Also they are both fossils of some species of dromeosaurs found close together
What are the circumstances? Are there any of them just hanging out? Or are they all feeding? Much of the carnivore fauna from La Brea is due to animals congregating to feed. That doesn't mean they were all pack hunters.
That isn't reddit spacing, you idiot.
This is reddit spacing.
Replying to each separate point separately is called making these things called "paragraphs".
>You know damn well why that's totally different, retard.
No its not, finding a certain event in the life of a specimen is difficult since fossilization is difficult. Thats the point I was making.
>What are the circumstances? Are there any of them just hanging out? Or are they all feeding?
Its on one of the studies you probably skimmed but
>Are they just hanging out
Okay you made me laugh.
Feeding takes more than a few seconds.
Mating and courting too depending on the animal.
Not really. All you know about animal sex you learned from furfags.
>All you know about animal sex you learned from furfags.
I was talking about scalies.
Btw, I don't believe Dromaeosaurs were pack hunters, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here. This study ALSO does not prove that they WEREN'T pack hunters. One of the complications when studying Dinosaur ecology is that they resemble FISH more than probably any other vertebrate in their social structuring. Yes, I said fish. There are a lot of other odd comparisons to fish like teeth structure in Sauropods compared to spongivorous reef fish and fused plates in Ornithischians compared to those in Parrotfish, etc. But many Dinosaurs had generationally separate herds (as far as we can tell). The hatchlings would form their own juvenile groups separate from adults. Sauropods are suspected of doing this for example. Now good luck finding a terrestrial vertebrate that does this, but fish fry do it all the time.
Thats interesting, but most teeth structure similarities could stem from the similarities on the stuff they feed from. I wouldn't go that route to advocate for dromeosaur packs.
Dude there's like 3 other dino threads. Why did you make a new one?
because I like dinosaurs
This entire paper is null and void if bird neuronal scaling is recent and dinosaurs did not have or, or an intermediate between it and basal croc-like brains.
They're just guessing that earlier animal will be like later totally unrelated animal in the way they want it to be. This is literally pure guesswork. Like guessing that you will be heterosexual because your father most likely was, but fact is he's a closet fag and you jack off to chickens.
Why are you so upset?
>Like guessing that you will be heterosexual because your father most likely was, but fact is he's a closet fag and you jack off to chickens
Lmao. Stop oversharing your issues on Wauf. Go to 4chan or /lgbt/ if you want to be weird.
they hated him because he told them the truth
>phylogenetic bracketing does not work across 65 million year timespans with potentially wrong taxonomy based on an extremely sparse fossil record
>makes obscure autistic metaphors that only he can grasp
>”n-no you’re dumb for not understanding!”
God I hate dinoschizo polmorons so much it's unreal.
Too many things are wrong or incomplete with this study but in order to avoid repeating what this anon said , the size of the cerebrum (and its proportion to body size) is not the only correlation needed when judging a species' intelligence. Gyrification (the development of the gyri and sulci or brain wrinkles and folds) is important too since that is one of the things that correlate with neuron quantity (more surface area allows for more neurons in a smaller space and thus more synapses). While birds have a reasonable cerebrum to body ratio they lack these folds that are present on primates. So even if dinosaurs had the same ratio as birds do inside their cranium it makes 0 sense to compare them to primates that do have these folds (less when compared to humans though) and it makes no sense to estimate their cognitve functions with just the criteria this study discusses.
I need to add, I know the study says 'behavioral and cognitive capabilities' instead of intelligence but its still subtle what the study tries to get to when comparing dinosaurs with cooperative and communal animals like parrots and primates. I don't really know about the metabolic stuff so I won't talk about that.
>and its proportion to body size
that's the critical one there.
even if the dude had genius level brain structure, all those neurons would be occupied by looking at stuff and lumbering around without falling.
also T. rex brains are 2/3 olfactory lobe. Like the entire forebrain mass back to the ethmoids is busy sniffing stuff and not thinking about it.
>he thinks crocs are stupid
get a load of this crayon-eater.
Homosexuality is a social construct. Why did you think chud reading hour is so important to ~~*them*~~?