Tyrannosaurus Mcraensis

Do you guys think the newly described Tyrannosaurus taxon is valid or not?

Why/why not?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47011-0#Fig1

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >prominent troony colors

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >pink is le gay

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous
  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Yutyrannus: about 2 tons
      >Deinocheitus: over 6 tons
      Yeah bro, they are totally comparable in size

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Proceratosaurids probably didn't have feathers either. Yutyrannus was acquired, like many chink fossils via questionable means and they don't even know where the frick it came from. If the Proceratosaurids actually had feathers, they would be the ONLY group of large, "traditional" style Theropods that had them. Every other feathered Theropod is some weird freak with odd adaptations like nipple claws or toothless beaks.

        >i think it's safe to say T. rex did not have feathers,
        Since feathers are basal to coelurosauria it's safer to assume T.rex had sparse short feathers with a mostly scaly body.

        >Since feathers are basal to coelurosauria
        Which Tyrannosaurids aren't. It's amazing you featherBlack folk are still sticking with this shit. When mammals lose hair they don't gain scales. Neither do birds. No ancestor of Tyrannosaurs EVER had feathers.

        I fricking hate that you are a schizo because half the things you say are absolutely correct, you just taint their credibility by saying other absolutely unhinged shit

        One day, you'll realize I'm just not afraid to address ALL the lies in the science and that you currently have social filters making some topics out-of-bounds no no areas. Feel free to research ANYTHING I post. Seriously. You might be surprised what you find.

        >Theropods are actually quite closely related to crocodilians - closer than they are to birds in most cases.
        You're a moron who doesn't understand phylogeny
        And you're probably a David Peters fan

        I understand it fine. It's you that doesn't. Birds derive from a very aberrant Theropod lineage that comes from at least as early as the Jurassic. They're nowhere near as closely related to Dinosaurs as most people assume. Whales and bats are more closely related than Archaeopteryx and T. rex.

        >Theropods are actually quite closely related to crocodilians - closer than they are to birds in most cases.
        You're a moron who doesn't understand phylogeny
        And you're probably a David Peters fan

        You're right I am. I think heretics like David Peters are necessary in science to get it unstuck from bad ideas like feathered Stegosaurs and dark matter. Now I DON'T agree with his theory that Pterosaurs are lizards and most of his reptile tree is a mess. I wonder half the time if he's trolling when I look at it. But I'm definitely not triggered by him going off-doctrine like you are because I'm a scientist and you're not.

        https://i.imgur.com/kxOo0zH.png

        What is the definition of paleoart? is it just any drawing of a prehistoric animal? is this paleoart?

        Yes.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm curious, what are your honres thoughts in dinosaurs from china? do you believe 100% of them are fake? did dinosaurs just not exist in china for some reason?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            My honest thoughts on chinese fossils is that nothing from china can be believed. Doctoring of fossils and creating fossils out of whole cloth and not knowing where a fossil came from are so commonplace in china that until a stop is put to the dragon bone trade, nothing out of china can be taken seriously. I view it like a judge would with contaminated evidence. It has to be thrown out. Even in genera like Mamenchisaurus where no tampering is suspected we have odd outcomes like the center of gravity being in front of the front limbs, which is literally an impossible dinosaur configuration. ALL chinese fossils should be viewed with suspicion. But ~~*westerners*~~ don't because feathered chinese bullshit is the new hot shit in paleontology at the moment. All paleontologists that let this slide are guilty of actively harming the field.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the person suggesting its fake is once again a chinese paleontologist

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh in that case the chink is wrong and it's real. You stupid b***h. You don't even know what the frick you're arguing anymore. You just come here to shit up the board.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's rich coming from you. paleontology threads are literally unusable because you waddle on in to every single one with your braindead schizo conspiracy theories.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You just come here to shit up the board.
                This is hilarious coming from the person who enters threads only to start screaming about trannies and chinese conspiracies

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Birds derive from a very aberrant Theropod lineage that comes from at least as early as the Jurassic.
          >They're nowhere near as closely related to Dinosaurs as most people assume.
          These two statements are literally contradictory
          Birds ARE dinosaurs phylogenetically, or cladistically, whichever you prefer.
          If your argument is that "Dinosauria" shouldn't be a clade but a grade then... i really wonder why you'd advocate for that.
          It sounds petty, like a childish attachment to the more reptilian reconstructions of these animals that are being phased out (sometimes unnecessarily, I'll give you that)

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a cladist so I'm not impressed by your sophistry.

            >It's not about feathers falling off. It's about the fact that we have dinosaurs that have BOTH filamentous feathers and scales preserved.
            No you don't. Ornithischians don't have feathers. Almost everything you said was midwit toilet brained bullshit.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Juratyrant

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      This homosexual.
      >um actually we should be studying other things than climate when our dinosaurs are shown by fossil evidence to be scaled even though muh climate is the exact argument we always use to explain why T. rex doesn't have feathers. Also, ignore the fact that all Tyrannosaurs never had feathers and we have scale impressions for multiple genera in the family, but yes we need to remember things like descent, but it's okay to make up entirely new ways of evolution working. All that really matters is that everything has feathers stuck on it.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      See this makes me laugh and I'm pretty sure the artist wasn't claiming that this was 100% accurate to what this animal would've looked like.
      Maybe the main problem with paleoart is the face that it's synonymous to some with "scientific art" which is why things get murky when some twitter artist starts drawing rainbow colored T. rexes calling it "paleoart" despite nobody involved claiming its purely scientific.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        What is the definition of paleoart? is it just any drawing of a prehistoric animal? is this paleoart?

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    4710888
    riiiiiiight, you're still a gay underagegay for caring about dinos past 14

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      We covered that featherisraelite. Thanks for playing.

      See this makes me laugh and I'm pretty sure the artist wasn't claiming that this was 100% accurate to what this animal would've looked like.
      Maybe the main problem with paleoart is the face that it's synonymous to some with "scientific art" which is why things get murky when some twitter artist starts drawing rainbow colored T. rexes calling it "paleoart" despite nobody involved claiming its purely scientific.

      None of them are serious because they don't take paleontology seriously. Then paleogays get mad when people start saying dinosaurs never existed and are fake. Well who's responsible for that?

      >nobody involved claiming its purely scientific
      These are weasel words. EVERYONE involved is letting it slide or consenting to SOME of it being real like feathers or moronic air sacks and wattles for which there is zero evidence, and in some cases which are DIRECTLY REFUTED by the actual fossil evidence. Paleontologists brought this on themselves. They don't get to play innocent now.

      [...]
      So the Prince Creek sampling is good enough that we've found dozens of dinosaur specimens and hundreds of plant fossils but not good enough to preserve crocs or turtles which are the most common vert fossils at most productive Mesozoic units. None of those plants are subtropical, all of them can exist in cool-temperate conditions, which is what the PC was. Why are you so comfortable lying? Did you think no one would call you on it?

      I'm not even mad. You just clearly don't know anything about plants. Actually you do bring up a good point though. I haven't reviewed the flora of Prince Creek yet. I'm going to do that now.

      >preserve crocs or turtles which are the most common vert fossils at most productive Mesozoic units
      Don't know. Maybe the areas studied weren't that wetland-y like most others like Hell Creek are. Maybe turtles and crocs just don't like to go that far north. Hard to bask with 6 months of sunless sky. I'll have to look into it. But again, the flora alone proves you wrong. I can tell you this though. A lot of Prince Creek plants also occur at Hell Creek (Ginkgo, Quereuxia, Aquilapollenites), which was VERY subtropical. I would even say on the warmer side since there were things like Varanids. And that's almost in Canada. Now, obviously Prince Creek is going to be a bit cooler and have different vegetation, but even the wikipedo article says it was frost free. I thought you liked listening to authorities? I don't know what the frick you think subtropical is supposed to mean at this point.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm not even mad. You just clearly don't know anything about plants. Actually you do bring up a good point though. I haven't reviewed the flora of Prince Creek yet. I'm going to do that now.
        So you were lying. You don't actually know anything about the PC plant record. None of the plants you listed are specifically subtropical plants. The idea that finding a plant in two locations automatically means they had the same climate is so tenuous and moronic that I'm kind of baffled. I guess Florida and New York have the same climate because oak trees are found in both locations. Gingkos aren't even present in PC at all. The forest composition is entirely different from HC (or any other lower latitude Maastrictian enviornment) which you would know if you knew anything about the plants.

        >Hard to bask with 6 months of sunless sky.
        Yeah its almost like its too cold for them or something. Fricking moron.

        >but even the wikipedo article says it was frost free
        The wikipedia article doesn't say anything about the frost. You can't stop lying to save your life. The PC was permafrost free, but so is every modern cool-temperate climate. No one is arguing the PC had an arctic climate, only that it was cool, and prohibitively cold towards non endotherms. You can't even win the argument you're having with the strawman lol

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Gingkos aren't even present in PC at all
          Why because you only got as far as the wikipedo article? You're such an insufferable pseud holy shit.

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667120302780

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Now address the rest of my points. Oh and

            >This assemblage is an outstanding example of an unusual Late Cretaceous, high-latitude, Northern Hemisphere, mixed dicot-coniferous, cool temperate, deciduous forest that existed in total darkness for a significant period each year.

            You're done lol

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              No you're not worth replying to.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah that’s what I thought. Why do you keep on arguing if you know you’re going to lose?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there were ginkgos so it must have been subtropical
            Ginkgos were much more diverse back then and even today are known for being frost tolerant and are found in temperate climates

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              k

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Schizo pretends to be richard stone, spends hours searching for the sexiest raptor costume (in his opinion) to make a meme with
    Is that really your idea of sexy? Lol, looks like a shitty wolf fursuit.
    Actual furry here

    I prefer scaled dinosaurs for porn. Most of us do. The cloaca aspect and lack of gendered plumage is a huge plus for those of us with more...non-binary preferences. Just imagine
    >A-ah, you're pushing up against my testes, onii-san!
    >I thought you were-*cums* AAAAAAAAAA, I'm gay now!
    Hawt.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Btw, I'm glad paleoprostitute finally came out of the barn. I'll be using this information to attack you in the future.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >some rightoid schizo going on about conspiracy theories
    Dont care. Didnt read. Feathers are basal to ornothodira. The proper term for a bird is an “avian theropod”. Deal w/ it gay.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'd say birds are archosaurs. Dinosaurs, though? They're derived from dinosaurs, sure. I'd argue that the differences are great enough to consider birds their own clade.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    4710642
    Dude, you have to be like 14 to care this much about dinosaurs still. Get a life.
    (You) revoked

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    You talk about this literally who probably more than his fans do

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I definitely consider brian engh an expert on not being smart.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What race is Brian Engh? The last name always suggested something south-east Asian to me, but this degree of race-baiting midwittery and gangster-speak for nigbux strikes me as something only pathetic limpdick hapas like Josh Luna can latch on to. What a monstrously pathetic individual

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wait til you see his rap videos.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What race is Brian Engh?

        he's a buck-toothed nordic wigger

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >he shows his shitty art when reffering to accurate reconstructions
          lmao

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >"colonial and biblical beliefs"
          The frick is this wigga talking about?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          oh my God it's even worse than I thought, he's Varg Vikernes

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            No he is not. Varg had the decency to kill people and burn churches. All this homosexual does is rap (poorly) and draw baby dinosaurs with their intestines falling out. Brian engh is weimar, Varg is the opposite.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >26 fricking minutes
          Oh boy, let's see how far I can get.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh christ, he literally begins the video with "Wassup y'all". I'm literally 1 second in and my ears are bleeding.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >man hates rightoids
              >mimics their speech

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >rightoids speak in ebonics
                Wut

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you unaware of the southern half of the united states

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I live in the southern half of the great satan.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                then you know we say "wassup y'all" fairly frequently

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not fricking here you don't. I mean nonwhites do. Definitely not rightwing white people.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I frickin hate yankees goddamn

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think he's talking about trailer trash. And that's not a southern thing. It's universal.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >forreals we found some rad stuff
              This guy is way too old to be talking and writing like this.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            i actually happened upon that video recently. It does its job as an examination and explanation of our current unserstanding of A. fragilis' anatomy fairly well. If he was cringe for a lot of the video, i must have just not noticed it.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Allosaurus isn't known to look the way he portrays it

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                did you watch the video? he pointed out the issues with the image, that image isn't one he made, lol

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am reffering to this monstrosity

                https://i.imgur.com/Xmm0JwR.jpg

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Another thing that pisses me off is he's patently wrong about a lot of shit. "Dinosaur" does not mean "terrible reptile". It means "terrible lizard". I've noticed a lot of the paleo community has a phobia about saying this, though that is the actual etymology, like it or not. And of course, because he's a feather gay he's trying to claim that because Archaeopteryx exists, this is the "correct" view of dinosaurs (feathered). God damn, feathertrannies are so fricking brain damaged. Dinosaurs are not the "ancestral tree that gave rise to birds". ONE specific very small subset of Theropods were. He even tries to claim that Theropods must've had birdlike tongues...because, okay? Ignoring the fact that the shape of bird tongues is dependent on the fact they have sharp, narrowing jaws converted to beaks, which Theropods lack.

                Also, this man has some fricking BALLS to be talking about a thorough review of the fossil record resulting in a view of dinosaurs as feathered. This has exited the realm of agenda and has just plain entered the realm of open, baldface lying. Even a cursory review of the fossil record reveals that scales AND NO FEATHERS were the norm and the only definitely feathered animals in the entire fossil record are a small group of Theropods that lead directly to birds with everything else in the group dying out at the end of the Cretaceous.

                He's also doing this bullshit that witton does also trying to make his bullshit art more believable by lying about how others have depicted dinosaurs. Nobody has EVER depicted an Ornithischian like pic related. Not that I've ever seen.

                And of course he ends the entire thing with "we were just joking! it's all jokes!", while his bullshit reconstructions end up in museums. Brian engh is truly both a shit artist and a terrible, dishonest person.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >God damn, feathertrannies are so fricking brain damaged
                Anybody who gets as upset over this stupid shit as you is severely brain damaged. Nobody fricking cares what some dickhead who draws ugly art thinks, this is pathetic and your presence on the board is like a cancer

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >uh why are you mad that your field of science is getting totally perverted by liars? like take a chill pill

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                my god you're legitimately insane

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Took you this long to realise? he's like an alternate universe Trey

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because its not moron. You can't seem to tell the difference between a paleoartist on twitter and a scientist

                https://i.imgur.com/EH2yUUu.png

                Says the prostitute lying about it, knowing full well it's happening. I wrote this piece. I'm rather proud of it.

                >the one who identified it as fake is a chinese paleontologist
                When are you just going to accept that its fossil markets faking them and not the chinese paleontologists you hate so much?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                why are you arguing with an obviously moronic person?

                let him be moronic. everyone can see he's a fricking tard.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                What else would these threads be for if not egging on a schizophrenic autist?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is david hone a paleontologist?

                https://i.imgur.com/h3etTTJ.png

                Believe it or not this how david hone STILL argues.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >When are you just going to accept that its fossil markets faking them and not the chinese paleontologists you hate so much?
                Why do you consider there to be a difference when even ~~*western*~~ paleontologists sanction them?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is mark witton a paleontologist?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is darren naish a paleontologist?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >feathertrannies are so fricking brain damaged
                Says a guy who is convinced that Chinese are faking their fossils in order to turn American youth gay with feathered dinosaurs.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Says the prostitute lying about it, knowing full well it's happening. I wrote this piece. I'm rather proud of it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                you would be proud of slop like that.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.jstor.org/stable/40986558

                https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/richard-stone-on-dinosaurs-living-descendants-72507330/

                I believe you are richard stone like anyone here would believe i made 6 million dollars creating cryptocurrency rugpulls on binance. His acceptance of feathered dinosaurs aside, he doesnt look like the wrinkly half hispanic fricker with the rat dog that is supposedly actually you (bugguy post psychotic break).

                Schizos DO tend to forget who they really are sometimes…

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

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

                >Schizo pretends to be richard stone, spends hours searching for the sexiest raptor costume (in his opinion) to make a meme with
                Is that really your idea of sexy? Lol, looks like a shitty wolf fursuit.
                Actual furry here

                I prefer scaled dinosaurs for porn. Most of us do. The cloaca aspect and lack of gendered plumage is a huge plus for those of us with more...non-binary preferences. Just imagine
                >A-ah, you're pushing up against my testes, onii-san!
                >I thought you were-*cums* AAAAAAAAAA, I'm gay now!
                Hawt.

                Lol that was an obvious joke. I didn't write the article. Jesus christ wherever women go, irony dies.

                >wrinkly half hispanic fricker with the rat dog that is supposedly actually you (bugguy
                Lolwut bugguy is danish or something.

                I'd say birds are archosaurs. Dinosaurs, though? They're derived from dinosaurs, sure. I'd argue that the differences are great enough to consider birds their own clade.

                See this is what cladists can't grasp. If you're going to use a group name, it shouldn't be the name of a group that's exclusive. Technically snakes are lizards, but nobody in real life calls lizards "non-serpentine lizards". Once enough morphological change has occured, you have to accept that a group has broken away from its ancestors. Cladists are unable to do this, so they see no difference between a mudskipper and a sparrow. This is why the Linnaean system will ALWAYS trump stupid ass cladism. It relies on real world traits do differentiate species. It doesn't get hung up on nonsense like paraphyly.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >bugguy is mexican
                >no, i'm danish!
                Caught.

                Why are danes always the most insane shitposters?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'll admit I don't know much about the Linnaean system but on wikipedia it says

                >Only in the Animal Kingdom is the higher taxonomy of Linnaeus still more or less recognizable and some of these names are still in use, but usually not quite for the same groups. He divided the Animal Kingdom into six classes. In the tenth edition, of 1758, these were:
                >Classis 1. Mammalia (mammals)
                >Classis 2. Aves (birds)
                >Classis 3. Amphibia (amphibians)
                >Classis 4. Pisces (fishes)
                >Classis 5. Insecta (arthropods)
                >Classis 6. Vermes (worms)

                I'm noticing a lack of reptiles here, what would dinosaurs fall under?

                https://i.imgur.com/hqWQLm8.jpg

                >bugguy is mexican
                >no, i'm danish!
                Caught.

                Why are danes always the most insane shitposters?

                Got any other examples or are you just shitposting? Danish don't generally have a huge presence online. There's only about 5 million of them on the planet. You sure it's not Finns, Turks, Australians, or (by sheer number) Americans?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dinosaurs are reptiles. And that article is horseshit. They're trying to use the original system published in the 1700s as if this is up to date.

                No joke i tried to look up the plants of hell creek out of curiosity and i could find NOTHING

                It's very difficult to study paleobotany. Most of the texts published come from the 1800s or early 1900s. Very little paleobotanical work has been done since then. It's mostly a smattering of texts here and there that review one or a small handful of species. I'm not sure why this is, but a lot of the work is very outdated. I'm going through the literature now and it's a lot of hard work and tons of revision is required.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I fricking hate that you are a schizo because half the things you say are absolutely correct, you just taint their credibility by saying other absolutely unhinged shit

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It couldn't be because they are trash, no, it's because the topics make people UNCOMFORTABLE

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't you ever forget this

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      this is a based opinion though

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just call it T-Imperador or some shit like that and be done with it

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Midlife crisis

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Those poor quality bait
    It's just sad, really.

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      The troon colors are a bit much eh?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/tPloyT2.jpg

      https://i.imgur.com/hswKo9m.jpg

      These are so stupid. Those should be internal like in every bird and reptile

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        heh

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Lip argument
    >morons talking about teeth
    The evidence for lips is the foramina in the bones being more similar to animals with lips than animals without. We don't need MORE evidence than this, because we already know exposed teeth are a derived condition, so we would need evidence that they lacked lips to argue that they had exposed teeth.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is the reason why i lean more to the lip side but aren't some paleonthologists who argue those were feeding blood to large face scales?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        There was a paper on daspletosaurus to that effec, it argued that the ruggosity on the maxilla like in this specimen was homologous to the ruggosity in a crocodile like

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

        Correct. Problems start to arise, however, whey you look at things like the Proterosuchids which gave rise to Dinosaurs and crocodilians and many theropods like Dilophosaurus as mentioned here: [...] Not to mention the fact that crocodilians also have these foramina, so clearly they don't = lips.

        >because we already know exposed teeth are a derived condition
        Not exactly. Jury is still out on exactly what Proterosuchid "lips" looked like. And given their habit was assumed to be similar to modern crocodilians, what was going on is questionable. The funniest part is that mammals have very few foramina on the jaws, so I guess they didn't have lips.

        [...]
        >gotta keep hydrated!
        Is fricking Nestle behind this shit?

        , but it's not universally accepted. I'm not personally convinced anyways.

        https://i.imgur.com/4Q0sNsq.png

        Stop understating it. Tyrannosaurids did not have ANY feathers.

        >muh elephants
        Now I want YOU to explain to me what's wrong with this analogy, because I'm fricking utterly fed up with rehashing it.

        [...]
        Lips make logical sense, but my bullshit detector goes off whenever I see lipped Theropods. There are too many issues. I've seen reconstructions that don't trigger my BS sensor as much, but I'm still unsure. I think the issue is most artists are reconstructing the lips so wrong it triggers my uncanny valley detector.

        [...]
        Dinosaurs aren't lizards. It should be remembered that crocodilians (which dinosaurs are actually related to) don't have lips and that's part of the source of this debate to begin with.

        [...]
        Somebody hasn't seen a Dilophosaurus jaw. Not only would Dilophosaurus be yet another example of teeth projecting BENEATH the bottom of the lower jaw with its mouth closed if it had lips, but it also has a massive subnarial gap, which is an adaptation for catching squirming (typically aquatic) prey, and having lips covering up that shape and covering the teeth up completely nullifies this very prominent adaptation.

        >Lips make logical sense, but my bullshit detector goes off whenever I see lipped Theropods.
        Many reconstructions are absolutely garbo, much too fleshy.

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

        Correct. Problems start to arise, however, whey you look at things like the Proterosuchids which gave rise to Dinosaurs and crocodilians and many theropods like Dilophosaurus as mentioned here: [...] Not to mention the fact that crocodilians also have these foramina, so clearly they don't = lips.

        >because we already know exposed teeth are a derived condition
        Not exactly. Jury is still out on exactly what Proterosuchid "lips" looked like. And given their habit was assumed to be similar to modern crocodilians, what was going on is questionable. The funniest part is that mammals have very few foramina on the jaws, so I guess they didn't have lips.

        [...]
        >gotta keep hydrated!
        Is fricking Nestle behind this shit?

        I'm unconvinced, the arrangement of the foramina on most theropods, and even in Proterosuchus, appears to me more analogous to the arrangement in varanids and other lipped animals than it is to crocodillians. Comparing this Daspleosaur, to your crocodile, yes, they both have foramina, but the arrangement is not as similar as other comparisons. The geometry can get difficult, and I'd not be surprised if some theropods have toothy closed mouth grins because of this difficult geometry, but I suspect that they are less toothy than they would be if they had bare gums.

        I suspect for most terrestrial feeders, a mouth with imperfect lips is still better than a mouth with bare gums into tight facial scales.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I'd not be surprised if some theropods have toothy closed mouth grins because of this difficult geometry
          So like in OP's pic?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Something like that, but IIRC, the Tyrannosaurs are not one of the species where the geometry is particularly difficult. Compare to the Dilophosaurus reconstruction in

            https://i.imgur.com/4Q0sNsq.png

            Stop understating it. Tyrannosaurids did not have ANY feathers.

            >muh elephants
            Now I want YOU to explain to me what's wrong with this analogy, because I'm fricking utterly fed up with rehashing it.

            [...]
            Lips make logical sense, but my bullshit detector goes off whenever I see lipped Theropods. There are too many issues. I've seen reconstructions that don't trigger my BS sensor as much, but I'm still unsure. I think the issue is most artists are reconstructing the lips so wrong it triggers my uncanny valley detector.

            [...]
            Dinosaurs aren't lizards. It should be remembered that crocodilians (which dinosaurs are actually related to) don't have lips and that's part of the source of this debate to begin with.

            [...]
            Somebody hasn't seen a Dilophosaurus jaw. Not only would Dilophosaurus be yet another example of teeth projecting BENEATH the bottom of the lower jaw with its mouth closed if it had lips, but it also has a massive subnarial gap, which is an adaptation for catching squirming (typically aquatic) prey, and having lips covering up that shape and covering the teeth up completely nullifies this very prominent adaptation.

            . It's an outdated reconstruction, but I think the mandible, maxila, etc are all pretty good? Anyways, assuming the people who are doing the taphonomy work are correct, the geometry on Dilophosaurus is way more challenging for full coverage lip anatomy than any Tyrannosaur.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Correct, but they're related in a way that is relevant to anatomy. Whatever was happening in Dilophosaurus was unlikely to have changed much by Tyrannosaurus. The (non-birdfreak line of) theropods are the most conservative of all dinosaurs.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the arrangement of the foramina on most theropods, and even in Proterosuchus, appears to me more analogous to the arrangement in varanids and other lipped animals than it is to crocodillians
          I mean I guess we have to use the data we have, but I'm still largely unconvinced by shitty reconstructions. Paleo"artists" are getting the lips very wrong. It can be done in a more convincing way, but that requires talent, which most of them don't actually have. Typically, I've favored a sort of in-between solution with sort of a toothy lipped mouth. The problem is everyone seems to think it HAS to be full mammal lips or ripped off crocodile rictus, but that's a non-sequitur. The best, most correct illustrations I've ever seen fall in between and that makes sense. Again, going back to the Proterosuchids, they are an odd sort of beast. Stuck between a lizard and a crocodile. It shouldn't be surprising they'd have middling features. Also remember that while theropod foramina may be similar to lizards, their jaw and tooth geometry is very much NOT. Lizards have teeth orientation that has them typically more or less perpendicular to each other like they are in a human jaw and both have lips. Dinosaurs, and especially theropods don't have an arrangement like this and their jaws close like a box. This is VERY different from lizards.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >foramina in the bones
      You're aware T.rex were massively infested with Trichomona, right ?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >animal that eats raw rotting meat gets infected with parasites found in raw rotting meat
        #wow#whoa

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Correct. Problems start to arise, however, whey you look at things like the Proterosuchids which gave rise to Dinosaurs and crocodilians and many theropods like Dilophosaurus as mentioned here:

      https://i.imgur.com/4Q0sNsq.png

      Stop understating it. Tyrannosaurids did not have ANY feathers.

      >muh elephants
      Now I want YOU to explain to me what's wrong with this analogy, because I'm fricking utterly fed up with rehashing it.

      [...]
      Lips make logical sense, but my bullshit detector goes off whenever I see lipped Theropods. There are too many issues. I've seen reconstructions that don't trigger my BS sensor as much, but I'm still unsure. I think the issue is most artists are reconstructing the lips so wrong it triggers my uncanny valley detector.

      [...]
      Dinosaurs aren't lizards. It should be remembered that crocodilians (which dinosaurs are actually related to) don't have lips and that's part of the source of this debate to begin with.

      [...]
      Somebody hasn't seen a Dilophosaurus jaw. Not only would Dilophosaurus be yet another example of teeth projecting BENEATH the bottom of the lower jaw with its mouth closed if it had lips, but it also has a massive subnarial gap, which is an adaptation for catching squirming (typically aquatic) prey, and having lips covering up that shape and covering the teeth up completely nullifies this very prominent adaptation.

      Not to mention the fact that crocodilians also have these foramina, so clearly they don't = lips.

      >because we already know exposed teeth are a derived condition
      Not exactly. Jury is still out on exactly what Proterosuchid "lips" looked like. And given their habit was assumed to be similar to modern crocodilians, what was going on is questionable. The funniest part is that mammals have very few foramina on the jaws, so I guess they didn't have lips.

      Crocs were already mentioned previously, their teeth are always hydrated since they live in water so they have no need for additional covering, they're an outlier to the rule and the lifestyle that enables them to have exposed teeth is entirely different from theropods

      >gotta keep hydrated!
      Is fricking Nestle behind this shit?

  24. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do people say it is impossible for teeth to be exposed all the time when my dog has had his lower teeth exposed for his entire 10 year life?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      How healthy were they? also mammals have thicker enamel than theropods to begin with.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Perfectly goodd, nothing ever happened to them (He still alive by the way)

  25. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only dinosaurs with somewhat of an argument for a lipless maw are spinosaurids and even then it's dubious because their ancestors definitely had lips so it would mean they'd have to lose them despite not spending 99% of their time in water for it to properly work

  26. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pic rel is both funny and terribly accurate

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Tarbosaurus just chilling in the background away from the shitshow
      accurate

  27. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So you don’t believe it sincerely. That’s fine. Please stop shitting up the board with it then.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      If cis people oppress you so much why why don't you go shoot up a Church?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I’m not oppressed by anyone, you’re just a moron who doesn’t understand what side of the argument you’re on.

  28. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    heeeeey mcraensis

  29. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no feathers
    This is not real according to leftist dogma of deconstructing masculinity and historical figures of worship.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you believe this sincerely, and you aren't engaging in political violence, you are a coward of the first order.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      as a leftist, the OP image is accurate. we're pretty sure most tyrannosaurines didn't have a thick coat of feathers. at most, they would have had a thin covering of protofeathers like the hair elephants have. You're obsessed.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lips are also not as set in stone as paleotwitter would want you to believe

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Show me the worn enamel on the outside face of their teeth and I'll believe they didn't have lips.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He doesn't know theropods were growing new teeth 24/7

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              So do lizards, not to mention that having a set of shitty brittle teeth worn down by the elements isn't exactly an advantageous strategy

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So do lizards
                >shitty brittle teeth
                Yeah, tyrannosaurus were known for having frail brittle teeth.
                Could you at LEAST try when you try to troll ?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                They would be shitty and brittle if they were completely exposed to the elements for the animal's entire life, yes
                However they obviously weren't and using even the tiniest bit of reason you can deduce they were covered (like every terrestrial reptile with teeth outside of crocodilians) because a predator with decaying, dehydrated teeth with worn down enamel would not be able to hunt anything

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you have NOTHING to back up your claim.
                Go it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have knowledge of how teeth work and every reptile alive to back me up

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >and every reptile alive to back me up

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Crocs were already mentioned previously, their teeth are always hydrated since they live in water so they have no need for additional covering, they're an outlier to the rule and the lifestyle that enables them to have exposed teeth is entirely different from theropods

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Tyrannosaurs were fully aquatic. That's also why they lost their feathers.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Crocs
                That's an alligator IDIOT

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Bringing monitors
                >Animals known for their frails teeth
                As I said : could you AT LEAST try ?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >outside of crocodilians
                See here's the part you're missing. Theropods are actually quite closely related to crocodilians - closer than they are to birds in most cases. Closer than they are to a lot of other DINOSAURS. But they're NOT at all closely related to lizards, except in being reptiles. This is why comparisons to Varanids are laughable. Cool, so you found a way in which animals CAN hide teeth behind lips. Problem is, the animals in question aren't related to the ones whose jaw structure you're trying to figure out. Oh and let's leave out that part about dinosaurs and lizards having completely different jaw structure. That would frick up our comparison to Varanids.

                >a predator with decaying, dehydrated teeth with worn down enamel
                I really wish I knew where this myth got started that animals can't have exposed teeth. There are tons of species from entirely different groups with exposed teeth. They do it fine. And then of course begins the eternal cope cycle:

                >You can't just have exposed teeth!
                >Musk Deer do.
                >Oh but they're just for display purposes!
                >Elephants.
                >Oh but elephant tusks don't have enamel!
                >They used to.
                Then the morons go silent, forget the conversation ever happened, then I have to hear this shit all over again next week.

                Why do people say it is impossible for teeth to be exposed all the time when my dog has had his lower teeth exposed for his entire 10 year life?

                I don't know, but it fricking needs to stop.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Theropods are actually quite closely related to crocodilians - closer than they are to birds in most cases.
                You're a moron who doesn't understand phylogeny
                And you're probably a David Peters fan

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sure they arent sport

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          They sure make the most sense though. Most old paleoart gives them lizard lips anyways so it’s not like it’s anything new

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree, personally i'm on the lips side but anyone acting like it is set in stone and impossible for them to not have them is a moron, that shit will literally not be known until a mummified theropod head is found

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Stop understating it. Tyrannosaurids did not have ANY feathers.

        >muh elephants
        Now I want YOU to explain to me what's wrong with this analogy, because I'm fricking utterly fed up with rehashing it.

        They sure make the most sense though. Most old paleoart gives them lizard lips anyways so it’s not like it’s anything new

        Lips make logical sense, but my bullshit detector goes off whenever I see lipped Theropods. There are too many issues. I've seen reconstructions that don't trigger my BS sensor as much, but I'm still unsure. I think the issue is most artists are reconstructing the lips so wrong it triggers my uncanny valley detector.

        So do lizards, not to mention that having a set of shitty brittle teeth worn down by the elements isn't exactly an advantageous strategy

        Dinosaurs aren't lizards. It should be remembered that crocodilians (which dinosaurs are actually related to) don't have lips and that's part of the source of this debate to begin with.

        The only dinosaurs with somewhat of an argument for a lipless maw are spinosaurids and even then it's dubious because their ancestors definitely had lips so it would mean they'd have to lose them despite not spending 99% of their time in water for it to properly work

        Somebody hasn't seen a Dilophosaurus jaw. Not only would Dilophosaurus be yet another example of teeth projecting BENEATH the bottom of the lower jaw with its mouth closed if it had lips, but it also has a massive subnarial gap, which is an adaptation for catching squirming (typically aquatic) prey, and having lips covering up that shape and covering the teeth up completely nullifies this very prominent adaptation.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Lips make logical sense, but my bullshit detector goes off whenever I see lipped Theropods. There are too many issues. I've seen reconstructions that don't trigger my BS sensor as much, but I'm still unsure. I think the issue is most artists are reconstructing the lips so wrong it triggers my uncanny valley detector.
          This is probably it for me too, for example, they look perfectly good and reasonable in Prehistoric Kingdom, but they look like absolute shit in pic related

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I will never understand the absolute obsession most paleo"artists" have with trying to turn T. rexes into bears.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Bears are cool, the only reason I like feathered dinos is because they look cool
              Idc about scientific accuracy becayse that shit changes every 5 years anyway

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It really doesn't. The actual evidence is pretty conservative. It's the wild ass theorizing that changes every few years.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Idc about scientific accuracy
                Feathergays, everyone.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Idc about scientific accuracy
                And there it is, friends! The ugly truth!

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Idc about scientific accuracy
                Feathergays, everyone.

                I just like feathered monsters
                Idc for the paleoautism shit

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Pot, meet kettle

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            they don't have lips at all in prehistoric kingdom you idiot, they removed them to make it look more like crocodiles for "cool factor", they explicitly mentioned this like 3 years ago

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >they removed them to make it look more like crocodiles for "cool factor"
              So much for a game being touted as having accurate dinosaurs

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              T. rex isn't the only dinosaur in the game you stupid c**t

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I know it isn't, but like I said, right before they released the game, they started massively remodeling all the dinosaurs that they had, which each had unique identities while remaining within the purview of scientific accuracy, into bland, genericized, movie monsters that fit the preconceived audience notions of what the animals are "supposed" to look like.
                It is a damnable shame what they did to Prehistoric Kingdom, it is so fricking bland these days compared to the heady pre-release hype of 2020.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they started massively remodeling all the dinosaurs that they had, which each had unique identities while remaining within the purview of scientific accuracy, into bland, genericized, movie monsters that fit the preconceived audience notions of what the animals are "supposed" to look like.
                NTA but i don't know other than the shitty snaggletooth rex they seem pretty on point

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                He unironically uses the term "movie mosnters" he probably thinks that Carcharodontosaurus is pure "awesomebro"

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You obviously haven't seen the game lately. It has some of the most accurate dinosaur models literally of all time. They've worked very hard to include as much real world data as they could. They did sneak in some feathergay shit so they didn't have to hear trannies whine, but those are all alternate skins.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They did sneak in some feathergay shit so they didn't have to hear trannies whine
                They also have butt naked Deinocheirus so that evens out

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It would be interesting if they had a naked Therizinosaurus skin if they add it

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I actually forgot about that. See this is how you do a game correctly. Have scientifically accurate models, but include the stupid ones for those that want to frick around with them instead so everyone's happy.

                It looks nothing like that

                What looks nothing like what?

                https://i.imgur.com/v7rrEZk.png

                Jurassic Park has wildly inaccurate and wrong shit even for the time, there's nothing wrong with that unlike what some they/them pedophile on Twitter would want you to believe but don't just try to veer into the complete opposite as a knee jerk reaction

                Cut off your dick. It's science, you'll love it!

                https://i.imgur.com/BnrxIMJ.gif

                Other than the Dilophosaurus what is wildly inaccurate for the 90's? feathers on dromeosaurs weren't set in stone back then, and the "Velociraptors" are actually Deinonychus, which would explain the size (they are still too big tho, but they needed to since they were portrayed by people in suits)

                It's a mad feathertroony. They're the ones that started the rumor that Jurassic Park was wildly inaccurate to sell their new strain of pseudopaleontology that by now has totally replaced the real thing. If you find this creature in real life, kill it.

                They're still nothing like deinonychus or even utahraptor which i've seen people compare them to, not to mention in the book and the original draft for the movie they had lizard tongues
                Also the prevalence of elephant style feet on triceratops and the sauropods, not to mention the t-rex's entire skull is wrong

                Actually in the book they had weird prehensile tongues. The river raft scene, which was cut from the movie, has T. rex using its tongue like an elephant trunk. And the movie T. rex's skull is NOT totally inaccurate. You've said that many times and it's never been true. You literally just made this horseshit up. The concept art for the Brachiosaur's feet is accurate. The concept art for the Triceratops' feet is a bit unclear, so it's hard to say. It appears to simply be missing the clawless toes on the manus. The raptors match Deinonychus in pretty much everything. Keep in mind that no integument for a Dromaeosaur has ever been found outside of china or mongolia. So we STILL don't know whether or not they were feathered.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Compare the old Jurassic Park style Brachiosaurus to the shit we have to put up with today.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I always found it curious that the "animals hold their necks up unless they have a good reason not to" rule has been abandoned with sauropods specifically. That DOES seem weird.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >"animals hold their necks up unless they have a good reason not to" rule has been abandoned with sauropods specifically
                you actually got that backwards
                for almost all of paleontological history, sauropods were portrayed with their necks sweeping up into the air like swans, until sometime in the 1990s or 2000s as a result of some potentially spurious theories by the likes of Gregory S Paul or Paul Sereno (cannot confirm that they were the ones to come up with it) - and for most of that time with the late Dinosaur Renaissance, sauropods were typically held to be almost purely horizontal animals, even going so far as to break the backs of brachiosaurs to get those vertically-aligned dinosaurs as low an angle as possible
                but in recent years (since about 2015-2016) that theory has come under closer scrutiny and found to be almost totally false, especially with regards to the glut of finds in the fields of eusauropods, macronarians, and titanosauria, and now the pendulum is swinging the other way - not only are the less popular sauropods like Alamosaurus or or Mamenchisaurus being portrayed as being vertically-oriented, with necks' minimum angles at about 45 degrees and going up to 90 degrees (or even further backwards in an S-shape!) but the regular old horizontal sauropods like Diplodocus and Apatosaurus are getting the same treatment, now being commonly believed to have held their heads up at 30-45 degree at rest and easily going to 60 or 70 degrees at need

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                PNSO has really good models. They are one of the few outfits that try for scientific rigor instead of speculative bullshit. Blue Rhino is another one. We're in the early stages of a true dinosaur renaissance as feathertrannies and gorehomosexuals get brushed aside. People are also tired of all the bullshit tabloid tier papers published in every field as more of the population becomes aware of the replication crisis.

                Sauropod necks AREN'T being portrayed as vertical though. They're being portrayed as diagonal, which is the geometrically least efficient possible position for their necks to be in. Also there's been a trend of making sauropod necks MUCH too thick. The model you posted is one of the less egregious examples of this. And I can point you to the exact paper that started the weird diagonal virgin head tilt. It's "Head and neck posture in sauropod dinosaurs inferred from extant animals [what they mean by "animals" is "giraffes"]" by Michael P. Taylor, Mathew J. Wedel, and Darren Naish (2009). Naish was one of the primary consultants along with witton on prehistoric planet also, which is why that was such a trainwreck of scientific inaccuracy. And as for the Mamenchisaurs, I don't know WHAT the frick is going on with them because they are physically impossible animals. Their center of gravity is in front of their front limbs. Something is very, very wrong with Mamenchisaur paleontology, but they are from china, so that's par for the course. I don't know if there's a group of dinosaurs that hasn't been fricked up at this point.

                >sauropods like Diplodocus and Apatosaurus are getting the same treatment
                Which may very well be wrong.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh if only knew how bad things really are. There is an entire suite of dogshit papers that convinced people that a million anatomical features of dinosaurs should "axchually" be depicted much more incorrectly than they were being previously.

                *The paper that claimed dinosaur nostrils should be sitting on top of the lips for some reason
                *The paper that claimed Theropods couldn't pronate their hands (which is wrong), leading to people putting Theropod hands on UPSIDE FRICKING DOWN to make sure they're not pronated
                *The virgin head tilt sauropod paper
                *The MANY papers trying to claim every dinosaur had feathers, despite the actual fossil evidence refuting this soundly
                *The paper that tried to claim Edmontosaurus had a dewlap (which was refuted)
                *Then there was ANOTHER paper that tried to claim Edmontosaurus had a wienerscomb, but that was a trendier idea so it got to stay, despite having the same flaws as the previous paper
                *The paper that tried to claim that Pterosaur pycnofibers are "axchually" real feathers and so all archosaurs (which Pterosaurs factually ARE NOT) have feathers QED featherhomosexualry is real sorry sweaty 🙂 which Unwin blew the frick up by showing Pterosaurs might actually have been naked.

                It just never ends these days with the dogshit papers fricking up dinosaur anatomy. But NOW we've finally hit a turning point and we're starting to see research come out that is directly refuting a lot of these bullshit claims.

                >I can't even tell if this is an actual tweet or not, knowing that pervert.
                https://twitter.com/BrianEngh_Art/status/880382819221946368

                God damn this creature is a parasite on the ass of paleontology.

                >I've been here the entire time, you dumb prostitute
                Then just tone down the autism please

                No.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Take your meds schizo

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are there papers actually claiming that every single dinosaur had feathers? i thought it was just twitter schizos saying that

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not entirely. Every paleontologist knows they can't back up that claim, but MOST current "paleontologists" try to claim that feathers are ancestral to all archosaurs, which they ARE NOT. And you've been listening to too many feathertrannies. Wherever you find a meme, there was a reason that meme was created.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                They are.
                >no they were plants + everything from china is fake!
                Yeah sure and the vaccine will kill us all in 2 weeks

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                At most you see people claiming they are ancestral to Coelurosauria

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >at most
                Frick I wish.

                this is a based opinion though

                It's a troony's opinion.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >which Unwin blew the frick up by showing Pterosaurs might actually have been naked.
                I like how every single paper that even remotely contradicts what you personally want is bullshit and ruining the field but as soon as a single paper comes out stating pterosaurs are feathered or a piece of disembodied scaly skin is found in a block containing utahraptors you latch onto it like its the gospel

                https://i.imgur.com/qT5Y4bk.png

                Don't you ever forget this

                You would not be complaining if the same person was saying they think scaly ornithomimids and dromaeosaurs were cool

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You would not be complaining if the same person was saying they think scaly ornithomimids and dromaeosaurs were cool
                Yes i would, because that is fricking stupid

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes i would
                Sure sure, whatever you say

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >denies reality and hard facts to uphold his fantasy by pretending this shit is accurate
                >calls anyone else trannies
                Holy kek, were you molested as a child or were you born with your brain wired differently?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You've posted a head. Now explain your presentation to the class. The only thing inaccurate are the mammal-like nostrils and possibly the subtle outlining of the antorbital fenestra.

                https://i.imgur.com/Ni9Z2TR.png

                I can't even tell if this is an actual tweet or not, knowing that pervert.

                [...]
                Please get the frick out, we were having a good conversation before you showed up

                I've been here the entire time, you dumb prostitute. Seems like things only went to shit when YOU showed up.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I can't even tell if this is an actual tweet or not, knowing that pervert.
                https://twitter.com/BrianEngh_Art/status/880382819221946368

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I've been here the entire time, you dumb prostitute
                Then just tone down the autism please

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So, you can lecture us and explain what's wrong ?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You trannies have been screaming about JP T. rex for thirty fricking years and STILL have never substantiated your whining. Dinosaurs were NEVER warm blooded. They're never going to be no matter how much you whinge or piss yourself. That's exactly why only birds survived the end Cretaceous extinction. Dinosaurs couldn't deal with a year or two of winter. Birds could. If you look at every species that survived that extinction they either:

                *Come from lineages that had adaptations to cold (softshell turtles, alligatorids, birds, mammals, primitive armored fish like gars and sturgeons)
                *Are tropical lineages that had small members that could have survived in liminal habitats (varanids, teids, lungfish, caimans)
                *Were marine (ocean conditions are more stable)
                *Were plants, which can survive in the seedbed as dormant seeds and generally survive most extinctions, though different groups tend to become dominant after an extinction event.

                Everything else died. The end Cretaceous was a BAD extinction. If dinosaurs really were warm-blooded at least ONE small non-feathered dinosaur lineage SHOULD have survived. Small theropods, some kind of small Ornithopod, a small Pachycephalosaur frick even a Protoceratopsid like a Leptoceratopsine. Those things were fricking everywhere. Yet not a single one did, despite all sorts of other reptiles surviving. All the large ocean-going reptile groups also perished, because they were all megafauna. NONE of that shit was warm-blooded. If ANY non-feathered dinosaurs were warmblooded, especially if modern fashionable but probably wrong theories like "burrowing" dinosaurs are true, SOME of these (particularly small Ornithopods and Leptoceratopsines) should have survived. But we know none of them did.

                https://i.imgur.com/KMdu9Hq.jpg

                Pack it up the schizophrenic pedophile found the thread

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You trannies have been screaming about JP T. rex for thirty fricking years and STILL have never substantiated your whining. Dinosaurs were NEVER warm blooded. They're never going to be no matter how much you whinge or piss yourself. That's exactly why only birds survived the end Cretaceous extinction. Dinosaurs couldn't deal with a year or two of winter. Birds could. If you look at every species that survived that extinction they either:

                *Come from lineages that had adaptations to cold (softshell turtles, alligatorids, birds, mammals, primitive armored fish like gars and sturgeons)
                *Are tropical lineages that had small members that could have survived in liminal habitats (varanids, teids, lungfish, caimans)
                *Were marine (ocean conditions are more stable)
                *Were plants, which can survive in the seedbed as dormant seeds and generally survive most extinctions, though different groups tend to become dominant after an extinction event.

                Everything else died. The end Cretaceous was a BAD extinction. If dinosaurs really were warm-blooded at least ONE small non-feathered dinosaur lineage SHOULD have survived. Small theropods, some kind of small Ornithopod, a small Pachycephalosaur frick even a Protoceratopsid like a Leptoceratopsine. Those things were fricking everywhere. Yet not a single one did, despite all sorts of other reptiles surviving. All the large ocean-going reptile groups also perished, because they were all megafauna. NONE of that shit was warm-blooded. If ANY non-feathered dinosaurs were warmblooded, especially if modern fashionable but probably wrong theories like "burrowing" dinosaurs are true, SOME of these (particularly small Ornithopods and Leptoceratopsines) should have survived. But we know none of them did.

                Please get the frick out, we were having a good conversation before you showed up

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I wonder if it's like an organized group like the shit you usually see on other boards or if it's a single guy with some kind of disorder

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >they removed them to make it look more like crocodiles for "cool factor"
              So much for a game being touted as having accurate dinosaurs

              This is what the T. rex model in PK actually looks like and it's very good.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Missing the lips to be fully perfect, other than that i have no complaints

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have no idea why people put so much weight on the lip as if that's the thing that makes or breaks a design. This rex may not have lips, but i would consider it to be superior to the Prehistoric Planet one because the skeletal and muscular anatomy seems much better

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because it looks jarring when every other theropod has lips other than pic related

                it's literally just the Jurassic Park T. rex

                No it isn't, are you blind?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The only inaccurate things about the JP T. rex are the skull, the arms and it being too skinny, all things this one doesn't have, what the frick are you talking about?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Maiasaurus

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It looks nothing like that

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That looks like a fricking allosaurus head

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I really don't like the crocodile skin, as spinosauridsd aren't known to have had osteoderms, but the other skin with small scales is awesome

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah it looks pretty dumb, wish you choose between having normal and croc skin independent of the colours

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                it's literally just the Jurassic Park T. rex

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The only inaccurate things about the JP T. rex are the skull, the arms and it being too skinny, all things this one doesn't have, what the frick are you talking about?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The feet are also too big

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, that's because - as I've been telling you - Jurassic Park was pretty accurate. It has some of the most accurate concept art of ANY dinosaur art. That's because it was before the featherhomosexual/specautist craze we're currently in the grip of.

                The only inaccurate things about the JP T. rex are the skull, the arms and it being too skinny, all things this one doesn't have, what the frick are you talking about?

                People just ASSUME Jurassic Park is inaccurate due to 30 years of featherBlack person propaganda.

                I have no idea why people put so much weight on the lip as if that's the thing that makes or breaks a design. This rex may not have lips, but i would consider it to be superior to the Prehistoric Planet one because the skeletal and muscular anatomy seems much better

                Because it's one of the few details we DON'T know. And dinosaur jaws are weird. The same problem exists in Sauropods, but not so much in Ornithischians, because their beaks leave little to the imagination. There it's more trying to figure out the musculature of their cheeks and the rest of their mouths.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Jurassic Park has wildly inaccurate and wrong shit even for the time, there's nothing wrong with that unlike what some they/them pedophile on Twitter would want you to believe but don't just try to veer into the complete opposite as a knee jerk reaction

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Other than the Dilophosaurus what is wildly inaccurate for the 90's? feathers on dromeosaurs weren't set in stone back then, and the "Velociraptors" are actually Deinonychus, which would explain the size (they are still too big tho, but they needed to since they were portrayed by people in suits)

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                They're still nothing like deinonychus or even utahraptor which i've seen people compare them to, not to mention in the book and the original draft for the movie they had lizard tongues
                Also the prevalence of elephant style feet on triceratops and the sauropods, not to mention the t-rex's entire skull is wrong

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Right, i forgot about the elephant feet, but i would still argue that's exactly what Deinonychus looked like in the 90's

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also this raptor's hands are literally broken at the wrists.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Jurassic Park has wildly inaccurate and wrong shit even for the time
                Could you at least fricking try when you bait ?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/v7rrEZk.png

                Jurassic Park has wildly inaccurate and wrong shit even for the time, there's nothing wrong with that unlike what some they/them pedophile on Twitter would want you to believe but don't just try to veer into the complete opposite as a knee jerk reaction

                https://i.imgur.com/BnrxIMJ.gif

                Other than the Dilophosaurus what is wildly inaccurate for the 90's? feathers on dromeosaurs weren't set in stone back then, and the "Velociraptors" are actually Deinonychus, which would explain the size (they are still too big tho, but they needed to since they were portrayed by people in suits)

                The anatomy of a lot of the dinosaurs is half good half bad. Saying the T. rex is still accurate by any stretch is moronic, but for the time it was more accurate than any other media by a mile. It brought intelligent warm blooded dinosaurs forward when other movies were still stuck in the slow moving dumb lizard stage

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I mean obviously, even if it has some wrong stuff for current standards it's genuinely one of the most revolutionary pieces of media for paleonthology despite what weird trannies would have you believe

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's an understatement. TO THIS DAY, at bare minimum the concept art is some of the most accurate dinosaur art we have, because as soon as the movie came out feathertrannies sent paleontology over a cliff.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You trannies have been screaming about JP T. rex for thirty fricking years and STILL have never substantiated your whining. Dinosaurs were NEVER warm blooded. They're never going to be no matter how much you whinge or piss yourself. That's exactly why only birds survived the end Cretaceous extinction. Dinosaurs couldn't deal with a year or two of winter. Birds could. If you look at every species that survived that extinction they either:

                *Come from lineages that had adaptations to cold (softshell turtles, alligatorids, birds, mammals, primitive armored fish like gars and sturgeons)
                *Are tropical lineages that had small members that could have survived in liminal habitats (varanids, teids, lungfish, caimans)
                *Were marine (ocean conditions are more stable)
                *Were plants, which can survive in the seedbed as dormant seeds and generally survive most extinctions, though different groups tend to become dominant after an extinction event.

                Everything else died. The end Cretaceous was a BAD extinction. If dinosaurs really were warm-blooded at least ONE small non-feathered dinosaur lineage SHOULD have survived. Small theropods, some kind of small Ornithopod, a small Pachycephalosaur frick even a Protoceratopsid like a Leptoceratopsine. Those things were fricking everywhere. Yet not a single one did, despite all sorts of other reptiles surviving. All the large ocean-going reptile groups also perished, because they were all megafauna. NONE of that shit was warm-blooded. If ANY non-feathered dinosaurs were warmblooded, especially if modern fashionable but probably wrong theories like "burrowing" dinosaurs are true, SOME of these (particularly small Ornithopods and Leptoceratopsines) should have survived. But we know none of them did.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no dinosaurs were warm blooded
                >not even the tiny ones from antarctica
                >not even the ones that were about one step away from birds

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The ones that lead to birds survived. None of the others did.

                >which Unwin blew the frick up by showing Pterosaurs might actually have been naked.
                I like how every single paper that even remotely contradicts what you personally want is bullshit and ruining the field but as soon as a single paper comes out stating pterosaurs are feathered or a piece of disembodied scaly skin is found in a block containing utahraptors you latch onto it like its the gospel
                [...]
                You would not be complaining if the same person was saying they think scaly ornithomimids and dromaeosaurs were cool

                That's because real scientists like this thing called "evidence". I know the propaganda for the past 30 years has claimed that wild ass speculation is "science", but I regret to inform you it's not. What people think is cool or not is irrelevant to the study of paleontology, except maybe in the way that it makes one study one group over another.

                >Yes i would
                Sure sure, whatever you say

                Just shut the frick up. You're completely useless on this topic.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The ones that lead to birds survived. None of the others did
                Birds had existed for tens of millions of years by that point
                >That's because real scientists like this thing called "evidence"
                They do, but you like ignoring it when it doesn't agree with you. See: "everything from china is a conspiracy to trannify our dinos, also everything from mongolia. Even if it was found by westerners"
                >What people think is cool or not is irrelevant to the study of paleontology, except maybe in the way that it makes one study one group over another
                more like except in the way that agrees with what you want to be true

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Birds had existed for tens of millions of years by that point
                And?

                >They do, but you like ignoring it when it doesn't agree with you.
                You misunderstand because you're a brainlet. Stupid "scientists" do inferior work to intelligent ones and often misidentify shit. Like mistaking actinofibrils for "feathers". Or plants for "feathers". Or literally anything else for "feathers". Or mistaking skin that has slipped off bone for a "dewlap" or "wienerscomb". And all of these stupid opinions come from the trendy view of "shit hanging off of dinosaurs because of that one book". When you actually look at the fossils, they tell a very different story. And part of that story is that most "paleontologists" are too fricking stupid to distinguish between taphonomy and anatomy. Or just making up the most bizarre shit (like the nostril thing). We get it, you're a woman, so you believe any authority figure as your genetic programming dictates. We're males. We don't have the same compulsion to intellectual laziness.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And?
                And that means that all the other bird adjacent theropods which were likely warm blooded yet didn't become birds were still hanging around
                >Like mistaking actinofibrils for "feathers". Or plants for "feathers". Or literally anything else for "feathers"
                Every feather imprint is a plant, regardless of whether or not its in the shape of a fricking wing.
                >When you actually look at the fossils, they tell a very different story
                Which you wouldn't know, since you don't look at the fossils or even read the papers apparently
                >And part of that story is that most "paleontologists" are too fricking stupid to distinguish between taphonomy and anatomy
                Dunning, say hello to Kruger. You don't seem to realise how entertaining your schizo rambling is

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why do dinosaurs persist at high latitudes while crocodiles and other classic reptiles are nowhere to be found?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because chinese trannies want you to think that they do, duh

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I dunno, probably because the paleoecology of the region is not completely known. Why is there subtropical vegetation? I don't know why it's so hard for you sois and women to grasp that the Mesozoic did not have the same climate as today.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Creek_Formation

                4710642
                Dude, you have to be like 14 to care this much about dinosaurs still. Get a life.
                (You) revoked

                I think we've checked off all the "gradually I began to hate them" boxes now.

                because at least one paranoid schizophrenic believes that any mention of feathers on Dino's is part of a conspiracy to hurt his feelings and comes here to vent because there's no moderation and no gatekeeping on this site

                The real question is, if I'm the mentally ill one, then why do my posts consist of explanation backed up by sources, while yours always consist if triple replies and histrionic screeching that literally don't even discuss paleontology?

                because at least one paranoid schizophrenic believes that any mention of feathers on Dino's is part of a conspiracy to hurt his feelings and comes here to vent because there's no moderation and no gatekeeping on this site

                >because there's no moderation and no gatekeeping on this site
                And that's bad, right? Go back to fricking reddit, prostitute.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

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

                [...]
                See this is what happens when all you know is theropods and not even well at that. You do stupid things like ignoring the local flora, which literally openly tells you what the climate was like. Then you start doing moronic things like depicting dinosaurs trudging through blizzards and meters of snow.

                So the Prince Creek sampling is good enough that we've found dozens of dinosaur specimens and hundreds of plant fossils but not good enough to preserve crocs or turtles which are the most common vert fossils at most productive Mesozoic units. None of those plants are subtropical, all of them can exist in cool-temperate conditions, which is what the PC was. Why are you so comfortable lying? Did you think no one would call you on it?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because chinese trannies want you to think that they do, duh

                See this is what happens when all you know is theropods and not even well at that. You do stupid things like ignoring the local flora, which literally openly tells you what the climate was like. Then you start doing moronic things like depicting dinosaurs trudging through blizzards and meters of snow.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                No joke i tried to look up the plants of hell creek out of curiosity and i could find NOTHING

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >they don't have lips at all in prehistoric kingdom you idiot
              No they didn’t, the teeth are exposed but are still mostly covered. Having the teeth exposed and not having lips aren’t the same thing. The fricking Jurassic park T. rex has lips, if it was lipless it would have a full on crocodile face

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          i think dilophsaurus wasnt just piscivorous, because the problem is that they have really robust arms, and the holotype is extremely fricked up, but didnt die from whatever fricked it up, which probably wasnt a competing fight. which only leaves them falling, but how you do fall in a riverland, and not die either, and the fact that its localized to a limb, or, more likely, prey struggled really, really hard and broke its arm, you dont get this kind of injury from fish. i mean its a pretty big bastard at 3 meters tall, theres a lot you can do with that bulk that isnt fish

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >piscivorous dilophosaurus
            The 90s called, they want their reconstitutions back

            I didn't say it was piscivorous. It doesn't look like the kind of creature I would expect to be. But that sort of notch is typically found in animals with aquatic prey. I'm not sure what was going on with Dilophosaurus.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              it was a medium size theropod, like allosaurus, except its arms were much stronger

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >piscivorous dilophosaurus
          The 90s called, they want their reconstitutions back

  30. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      oh lawd he comin

  31. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Do you guys think the newly described Tyrannosaurus taxon is valid or not?
    No.
    >Why/why not?
    No.

  32. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Do you guys think the newly described Tyrannosaurus taxon is valid or not?
    No.
    >Why/why not?
    Dinosaurs aren't real. Every dinosaur skeleton is just a hodgepodge of ancient megafauna bones incorrectly assembled into a lizardlike form.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You’re a hodgepodge of fat cells and tape worms assembled into a humanlike form

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Learn to bait

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        My genuine beliefs are not bait, you're a c**t.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >P-PLEASE ! F-FEED ME !
          No. Learn to bait.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you such a c**t? Your weird projection doesn't change my autistic compulsion to share my true opinions regardless of what people think of them.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous
            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >N-NOOOOO ! Y-YOU MUST F-FEED MEEEE !
              No. Learn to bait.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Whining and projecting on me won't make dinosaurs any more real. The only one trolling or baiting here is you.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Don't care, won't feed.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                ok

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nice.

  33. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >new paper comes out with an interesting take on tyrannosaurine evolution
    >post devolves into the same brain dead bickering over feathers as every other dino thread

    Why are you homosexuals like this? Do you even like dinosaurs anymore?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's one homosexual

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair to this thread, the conversation naturally went there this time

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sometimes when a guy is very bored and lonely, he samegays and creates fake scenarios, sockpuppets, etc to eventually indirectly reveal more stuff about his life as a desperate bid for attention - like he's going to "recognize himself" (lol) or drop a lot of info about what he does for work, without coming across as too much of an attention prostitute, stuff like that. It can get very elaborate.

      That's what i'm seeing here

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sometimes when a guy is very bored and lonely, he samegays and creates fake scenarios, sockpuppets, etc to eventually indirectly reveal more stuff about his life as a desperate bid for attention - like he's going to "recognize himself" (lol) or drop a lot of info about what he does for work, without coming across as too much of an attention prostitute, stuff like that. It can get very elaborate.

      That's what i'm seeing here

      Everyone you don't like is the same person

  34. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I will never believe Nanotyrannus is real.
    They're baby T. rexes, simple as.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, Nanotyrannus isn't real, Jane is obviously a juvenille Tyrannosaurus so the holotype of Nanotyrannus isnt valid, but there was a small tyrannosaur that lived in Hell Creek with Rex. You can cope all you want about it, but the Dueling Dinosaurs theropod was not a Rex.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Jane is obviously a juvenille Tyrannosaurus so the holotype of Nanotyrannus isnt valid
        Since Nanotyrannus will be a nomen dubium regardless of the existence of a small hell creek tyrannosaur for this reason, what should we call this new genus? I propose Schizotyrannus

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Tyrannomanlet

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          seethosaurus

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Alioramid lived side by side with Zhuchengtyrannus and Tarbosaurus an animal so similar to Rex that people still argue whether or not it should be just a species and not its own genus and yet there are still people that act like it's crazy for a Dryptosaurids or Albertosaurid to fulfill a similar niche in North America

  35. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I haven’t have time to look at their figures yet, but their arguments, if supported by those figures in the way they claim, seem robust.
    And it’s interesting to see a challenge to the “out of Asia” hypothesis for Tyrannosaurids.

    Pushing back Tyrannosaurids in Laramidia to before the interchange that brings Titanosaurs back to North America helps explain why no Megaraptorans followed the Titanosaurs into Laramidia.

  36. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hated T. regina and T. imperator, but I can't say I love T. mcraeensis. Tyrannosaurus rex was chosen as an intentionally cool name, and a century later its cool factor cannot be contested. Why not T. princeps? It hints at its earlier age and still sounds cool. T. mcraeensis only reminds me of how many animals are Something mongoliensis.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why not T. princeps? It hints at its earlier age
      That's wrong though. The kings are the earliest government of Rome, the principate (Empire proper) the lastest.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I would have gone with T. tlahtoani
      >the word for an aztec king feels like it would fit a large southern tyrannosaurus species

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >T. princeps
      >cool
      Sounds like "princess"

  37. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >people got anal mad over T. Regina even though this essentially substantiates it but gives it an even worse name because the paleo community hates Gregory S. Paul
    Lmfao, scientists are such asshurt gays

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      T. regina and T. imperator cringe tryhard names, T. mcraensis sounds suitably scientific and Linnean, like what you'd expect from Othniel Charles Marsh or Edward Drinker Cope
      >Diplodocus carnegii

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >t. imperator
        i get what you mean with tryhard but i like it allt because something like tyranno imperator sounds like a ship name from halo or wh40k but enough about that, is the imperator different to normal t rex in any major way?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      T. Regina was supposed to be concurrent to T.Rex and was supposed to include a multitude of old t-rex specimen

      T.Mcreaensis is supposed to be older by up to 7 million years and it has so far been assigned exactly one specimen that is supposedly morphologically distinct from any T.Rex known

      At least read before complaining, Skimmer-san

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Imperator COULD make some sense as a paleosubspecies of T. rex but the rex/regina dichotomy was moronic af.

  38. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  39. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    How would you even tell the difference between species from fossils?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You mean aside from the various morphological differences?

      If the dating is correct, the holotype of the new species is quite considerably older than any other known Tyrannosaurus, possibly all the way from Campanian

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Usually they are within the individual variation spectrum of the more common species of the same genus but come from a geographically and temporally distinct formation.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's probably valid. Holtz seems to think so and "Alamotyranus" will likely result in more evidence that giant Tyrannosaurs are southern Laramidia. Plus TMM 41436-1 and UMNH 11000 are very likely Mcraensis as well rather than Rex.

      Carr is against it in the most obnoxious way imaginable (as usual)
      https://twitter.com/TyrannosaurCarr/status/1745491440904626214
      I genuinely hope this taxon is valid if only because Carr is so fricking insufferable and it'd be nice to see him humiliated/humbled.

      It's 7 million years older than Rex.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Last time a paper related to rex humbled a paleomoron was with Trey, and he got so ass-blasted by it that he left the topic entirely

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Did he really never recover from t.rex being bald? That sounds hilarious

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's telling the truth, and it was hilarious. The queer literally made a cope video when the evidence came out and he was all like "uhm, noooo. just, nooo." in the face of concrete proof. That's what happens when a majority of your career is spent trying to "dumb down" an extinct animal you personally don't like because it's popular.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >That's what happens when a majority of your career is spent trying to "dumb down" an extinct animal you personally don't like because it's popular
              What's up with the sudden influx of people disliking T. rex back around the 2010's? was it pure contrarianism? you can't look at this thing and not think it is one of the coolest things to ever exist

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think it's the oversaturation of art and media that does it. There's so much bad or mediocre portrays of T. rex that it's hard for me to care about it unless I'm looking at the skeleton.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wauf/reddit contrarianism
                >thing is popular
                >therefore must hate it in favor of obscure thing
                I'm partly guilty of this too, I've conditioned myself into preferring other Tyrannosaurs as my favorite dinosaur (like Albertosaurus for example) in order to decrease the total population of people whose favorite dinosaur is T. rex.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Pure contrarianism. They wanted to feel special little snowflakes.
                Also because it would "own the chuds".
                They NEVER recovered from skin impresisons.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they never recovered
                From what, proto-feathers being basal to ornithodira? It's a single gene mutation, losing them is easy. Mixed integument is painfully plausible. No certainty without 100% preservation.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                By using phylogenetic praketing (ironically) i think it's safe to say T. rex did not have feathers, feathering the gaps in this image is just massive cope

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >phylogenetic bracketing!
                idk man it was literally just lizard fur. considering that the condition is basal to ornithodira and easily lost and re-acquired, we can not be so sure.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >idk man it was literally just lizard fur
                For a giant theropod in a climate much warmer than ours ?
                Come on man, if you want to troll, do better than that.

              • 3 months ago
                /an/ chatbot

                Sparse hairs on animals can have a thermoregulatory effect including the dissipation of excess heat.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >From "they were full of feathers"
                >To "L-let's j-just say they h-had very s-sparce hair"
                You lost, dude. Get over it, I'm sure you can find something else to try to "trigger" people.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you actually going to respond to his argument or are you just going to seethe about even the tiniest bit of protofeathers on your favourite sigma gigachad giant scaly monster with big teeth? Literally every recent depiction of T.rex has at least a sparse section of protofeathers, even JW:D. It seems like you're the one who lost, anon.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >muh toxic masculinity
                Keep coping, Trayoon.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I remember this was one of Trey's copes.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                My favorite was "maybe they are feathers... in disguise!"

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Believe it or not this how david hone STILL argues.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not about deducing if they were feathered or not based on current evidence it's about twisting said evidence to support whatever you want to believe

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, exactly like what that moron hone said in the image I posted.

                >UM ACTUALLY THERE ARE MAGIC HIDDEN FEATHERS!!
                >JUST BECAUSE YOU FOUND SCALES DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE SCALES!! THEY COULD STILL BE FEATHERS REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >phylogenetic bracketing doesn't count when it goes against feathers
                Did you forget Yutyrannus (who isn't even that closely related to T. rex) is the reason this shitshow started?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/rkGrh0n.png

                >new paper comes out with an interesting take on tyrannosaurine evolution
                >post devolves into the same brain dead bickering over feathers as every other dino thread

                Why are you homosexuals like this? Do you even like dinosaurs anymore?

                Why does topic have to be such a shitshow? Its such an interesting topic, which lineages lost feathers at what point, but no it just devolves into namecalling and internet personality discussion.

                https://i.imgur.com/oCUS5Ci.jpg

                >phylogenetic bracketing!
                idk man it was literally just lizard fur. considering that the condition is basal to ornithodira and easily lost and re-acquired, we can not be so sure.

                Maybe polar species like Nanuqsaurus could regain their feathers like mammoths did.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                because at least one paranoid schizophrenic believes that any mention of feathers on Dino's is part of a conspiracy to hurt his feelings and comes here to vent because there's no moderation and no gatekeeping on this site

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >i think it's safe to say T. rex did not have feathers,
                Since feathers are basal to coelurosauria it's safer to assume T.rex had sparse short feathers with a mostly scaly body.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                What's so unbelievable about them just losing the feathers allrogether? that's what the fossil evidence shows

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, that's not what the fossil evidence shows. What it shows was that Tyrannosaurus had some small irregular scales.
                That is not enough to rule out feathers. Feathers need extremely specific conditions to leave an imprint, and these were very uncommon during Cretaceous North America

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >just feather the gaps bro that's totally were feathers were present!

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Odd that nobody ever finds it suspicious that dinosaurs knew to grow feathers in exactly the spots paleontologists wouldn't dig up fossils for.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's the other way buddy : you're the one that have to prove T. rex had feathers.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Feathergays can't comprehend Russel's Teapot.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because losing one form of integument doesn't give a bonus from god of a free different integument. Scales have to evolve. They don't just *appear* like magic when a feather falls off. Why this basic fact is so incredibly hard for people to understand I do not get. Neither do feathered animals just have a layer of scales hanging out below every feather [insert paleoprostitute posting an image of an owl's feet (but not the plucked body for some reason)]. MANY birds, including paleognaths - which are the most primitive birds - have lost feathers on parts of their body. Guess how many have recovered dinosaur-like scales afterwards. Oh...uh that would be ZERO. Kind of odd, since the going mainstream "theory" (agenda) is that EVERY group of dinosaurs lost feathers that they supposedly inherited from Proterosuchids, except Theropods and three Ornithischians randomly (which don't actually have feathers). Ostriches don't even have scales on their calves. I mean shit you'd think that would be easy, yet they never did it.

                >that's what the fossil evidence shows
                Oh is it? Prove it. The fossil evidence VERY MUCH does NOT show this. This is a "theory" based on NOTHING that feathertrannies made up after Jurassic Park came out to try to publish their way to fame by being contrarians. And because modern humans are so moronic, it worked. Of course the price was now a lot of people think dinosaurs were fake. Congratulations.

                No, that's not what the fossil evidence shows. What it shows was that Tyrannosaurus had some small irregular scales.
                That is not enough to rule out feathers. Feathers need extremely specific conditions to leave an imprint, and these were very uncommon during Cretaceous North America

                Our Lady of the Feathers of the Gaps. Amen.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They don't just *appear* like magic when a feather falls off
                It's not about feathers falling off. It's about the fact that we have dinosaurs that have BOTH filamentous feathers and scales preserved.
                What can change during clade evolution is the distribution and amount of each.
                Modern birds are different since they ancestrally mostly lack filamentous feathers and have no scales outside of the feet.
                When their genes tell them to switch feathers off in some body region, the remaining skin is scaleless.
                Considering what we see in Kulindadromeus, and the fact that we see feathers in Yutyrannus and scales in the similarly body-sized Tyrannosaurids, it's safe to assume genetic expression of integument worked differently in non-avian dinosaurs.
                But this argument is mostly pointless since you believe Yutyrannus is fake

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >From what
                Spending years online trying to make people angry about feathered t. rex.
                It was almost their whole identities.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                And there it is, the cope now is
                >unless we find 100% of the animals then feathers were present!
                These morons will just never stop coping

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's what we call the feathers of the gaps. It's also why the feathered T. rex image has morphed from fully feathered to that stupid cloak of feathers shit and gradually the feathers moved up the neck and got thinner and thinner.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Obviously all the gray parts in

                https://i.imgur.com/mcmKa4R.jpg

                By using phylogenetic praketing (ironically) i think it's safe to say T. rex did not have feathers, feathering the gaps in this image is just massive cope

                is where the feathers were present

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you listen to furgays.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                He clearly stated what they never recovered from, please stop ruining every dinosaur thread

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >losing them is easy.
                Mhm. But gaining scales isn't.

                >Mixed integument is painfully plausible
                Yeah, scales on the feet and feathers elsewhere. We call those birds.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Can you even call it a career? Black person wasn't a
              paleontologist or anything, he was just some angry homosexual on the internet avatargayging as stolen Kosemen art recolored to resemble a character from fricking Gravity Falls of all things

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have the vague memory if him reffering to himself as a paleontologist in one video, could be wrong tho

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah somehow i doubt it, even then if he was it would be even more embarassing for him to shit and cry over a colleague's findings and automatically dismissing because it goes against what he wants to believe

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                he probably has an undergrad and did like one dig. I have a masters in history (I knoe) and I would cringe if someone called me a "historian"

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah he pretended to be a paleontologist on youtube and here on Wauf.

                The actual irony is he was arguing his views at length with an actual paleontologist on Wauf for a couple years prior to the publication of Bell et al in 2017. The scientist he was arguing with was one of the "et al" of Bell et al. Trey also corresponded with another author on the paper and posted the emails here. He got BTFO pretty badly.

                He should've known though. Everything published in Bell et al was just a republication of existing material.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                He apparently emailed Larson and asked about integument in the "Dueling Dinos" specimen. At that time known as the "Bloody Mary" slab.

                I had informed him that the fossil contained significant amounts of new skin from a tyrannosaurid which at that time hadn't been published outside of Larson's lectures.

                He didn't believe me, so he emailed Larson. Larson informed him that he had an exciting new paper coming up in a month or two discussing feathers in rex. The anon took this to mean that Larson had proof that rex was feathered. Larson of course meant the exact opposite. Trey had a spectacular meltdown on both Wauf and youtube. Last I checked he posted an apology video and gave up on explaining dinosaurs.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >which at that time hadn't been published outside of Larson's lectures.
                to my knowledge this new skin still hasn't been formally described.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Last I checked, Lindsay Zanno was stating that the fossil will provide exciting new information about feathers in tyrannosaurs.

                this is probably a bit misleading, and very similar to what Larson told the anon that apparently was Trey.

                The "exciting new information about feathers in tyrannosaurs" is that they apparently didn't have any.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing on the Dueling Dinosaurs theropod has been published offcially yet. That's why I seethed over Longrich & Saitta's nanotyrannus paper. There was no reason to publish what is essentially a half finished paper when there are at least 3 papers on the the Dueling dinosaurs "Nanotyrannus" coming out this year that are going validate the existance of a smaller Tyrannosaur living side by side with T. Rex.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think it's very disingenuous to make the (undiscovered) claws on that rex arm as small as possible

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                They are literally in scale with the rest of the arm

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                As I mentioned to the anon that was probably Trey, Larson has published some details of the fossil in lecture.

                but yes, he saved formal description of the fossil for whoever ended up buying it. It ups the selling price if he doesn't publish the thing.

                I also agree the fossil should add info on Nanotyrannus. As does Larson.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Nanotyrannus
                We're still on this bullshit?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Trey had a spectacular meltdown on both Wauf and youtube
                Any archive on the Wauf parts ?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Never happened. That dude is an ex paleontologist who is now a medicated schizophrenic so his words are full of half truths. It’s like when ted K is lucid, he’s still not 100% in reality.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/3GLeOaS.gif

                >they never recovered
                From what, proto-feathers being basal to ornithodira? It's a single gene mutation, losing them is easy. Mixed integument is painfully plausible. No certainty without 100% preservation.

                clown

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That was actually me, and I'm not Trey. I was in high school and now I'm a professional geologist working in economic geology. Volunteer on marine reptile digs in my spare time.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hi Daniel

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                He posted here??

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                maybe

                someone that claimed to be him posted here. That person repeatedly posted the same arguments for feathered rex several years prior to those same arguments appearing in Trey's videos. When that anon on Wauf came up with a new argument on Wauf, it would later appear in Trey's videos. When I told the anon here that I am a trained dinosaur paleontologist Trey mentioned in his next video that paleontologists were watching his content and talking to him, and agreed with him. When Bell et al was published the anon on Wauf went through and listed the arguments attempting to debunk it several hours before the exact same arguments appeared in the same order on Trey's video. And when Trey posted his apology video, that anon vanished from Wauf.

                there is no conclusive proof Trey posted here, but a shitload of circumstantial evidence combined with someone claiming to be Trey posting here. I believe it was him.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I believe Trey took the video down, but a couple days after the publication of Bell et al the anon claiming to be Trey posted a detailed rebuttal of the paper using infographics which then appeared in Trey's video rebuttal later that same day.

                Trey's video is probably gone, but the anon's posts on Wauf remain in the archives. It looks very much like Trey was posting here. If not, he was either summarizing the content of Wauf or was working with someone that posted here. Hard to say but I was convinced it was him.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Trey's video is probably gone,

                a search of Wauf archives will turn up all of the arguments and most of the graphics used in this vid.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Probably the most damning bit of evidence that both Trey and at least one of the authors of the paper posted here is the simple fact that both Trey's videos and the Bell paper exactly follow the same form, content, and order of the arguments posted on Wauf.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Which amusingly enough indicates the Bell paper was written as a direct rebuttal to Trey's videos.

                which is very flattering I think. The dude managed to be so wrong for so long that scientists actually published a whole paper primarily to refute his views. A bit petty, but he's the only non-scientist in the discipline to be honored with a paper just to prove him wrong.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                imagine being such an insufferable homosexual that the scientific community publishes an entire scientific paper just to BTFO you specifically lmao

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It was a glorious moment

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              I find Trey and people like him to be both the funniest and also most pathetic types of hypocrites imaginable, they boast about pushing for accuracy and criticize others for clinging onto outdated and incorrect depictions of dinosaurs while rejecting new ideas supported by evidence and yet it's literally what they do the second their pre established ideas are challenged by new studies and this t-rex scale shit fully showcases it
              Trey doesn't give a single frick about the real tyrannosaurus, he simply jerks off to the version of it he made in his head because it upsets jurassic park fans on online forums or something, he doesn't support feathers because there is direct evidence to do so he only supports them as part of some weird internet slapfight agenda and the second the real animal is proven to be scaly it suddenly becomes not good enough for him, he is literally no different from people rejecting the real t-rex in favour of the Jurassic Park frog mutant and the fact that he doesn't realise this is so fricking funny

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Couldn't have said it better myself

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                God I love that pic

  40. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't looked at any documentation but I'm certain it will be disregarded whether or not it is valid.

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