Tyrannosaurus Mcraensis

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.

>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

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

Are you unaware of the southern half of the united states

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

I frickin hate yankees goddamn

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.

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

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

why are you arguing with an obviously moronic person?

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

Is david hone a paleontologist?

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

Believe it or not this how david hone STILL argues.

Is mark witton a paleontologist?

>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.

you would be proud of slop like that.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

>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

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

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

Pot, meet kettle

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.

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

>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

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.

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.

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.

Take your meds schizo

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.

At most you see people claiming they are ancestral to Coelurosauria

>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

>Yes i would
Sure sure, whatever you say

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

>Maiasaurus

That looks like a fricking allosaurus head

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

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?

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.

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)

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

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

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

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.

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.

>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.

Ok

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

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?

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

>Don't care, won't feed.

Nice.

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.

>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.

>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.

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

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.

I remember this was one of Trey's copes.

Believe it or not this how david hone STILL argues.

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!!!

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.

>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.

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

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

Feathergays can't comprehend Russel's Teapot.

>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

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

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

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

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

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.

>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.

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.

They are literally in scale with the rest of the arm

>Nanotyrannus
We're still on this bullshit?

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.

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.

He posted here??

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.

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.

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

God I love that pic