Wrists and Feathers in Dinosaurs

I was recently thrust into the wrist pronation and feather debate. I got two questions with my own amateur takes but I seek enlightenment from those who know better
>dinosaurs couldn't pronate their wrists
I would argue that humans cannot either. When we turn our palms inward, we rotate the forearm, not the wrist itself and our palms face slightly inward when hanging relaxed by the sides. Did dinosaurs have fused elbows or radius/ulna that would make such movement impossible?
>feathers in beipiaosaurus means therizinosaurus had them too
Is there evidence? Shouldn't we assume that they were fatherless until proven otherwise? In my opinion, how much a creature is coated in fur or feathers depends not only on size but also skin texture/thickness. Elephants for example have wrinkly skin that increases surface area, making fur unnecessary, which is why giraffes, despite being taller and more active, have fur.

Personally, I don't care much for dinosaurs beyond the documentaries out there, just wanted to gather some information so I don't talk out of my arse next time. Thanks.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I would argue that humans cannot either.
    this kills the toproller

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Shouldn't we assume that they were fatherless until proven otherwise?
    That's like assuming mammals are hairless until proven otherwise. Doesn't mean all mammal have thick fluffy fur, just that thee are some kinds of har though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Only some later theropod lineages, pterosaurs, and one evolutionary dead end have any evidence of feathers

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Correction: Pterosaurs don't have feathers (feathergay whining notwithstanding - to them, everything is a feather except fur which is nearly identical, ironically) and only some Theropods did. There are NO Ornithischians with feathrs. None. They're all mis-ID's or hoaxes. Every single fucking one.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ornithischians aren't dinosaurs.
          That is, not popculture dinosaurs.
          Popculture dinosaurs are warmblooded, clever, agile.
          Meanwhile, bone growth patterns of ornithischians suggest they were (mostly) cold-blooded, which in turn has implications for their neuron density. Their breathing apparatus was reminiscent of crocodylians, there's no signs of (proto-)avian lungs, nor of air sacks in their bones.
          The ornithischians we've found north of the polar cycle either hibernated (compare to European vipers) or were seasonal migrants. They had neither the brains nor the endurance or theropods, which may explain the comparatively high incidence of armour amongst them.
          Ornithischians and Theropods are physiologically so radically different, they dwarf the difference between eutherians and monotremes.
          Pretty much of popculture dinosaurs' woes can be traced to people not understanding this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ornithischians aren't dinosaurs

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Ornithischians aren't dinosaurs.
              That is, not popculture dinosaurs.
              Popculture dinosaurs are warmblooded, clever, agile.
              Meanwhile, bone growth patterns of ornithischians suggest they were (mostly) cold-blooded, which in turn has implications for their neuron density. Their breathing apparatus was reminiscent of crocodylians, there's no signs of (proto-)avian lungs, nor of air sacks in their bones.
              The ornithischians we've found north of the polar cycle either hibernated (compare to European vipers) or were seasonal migrants. They had neither the brains nor the endurance or theropods, which may explain the comparatively high incidence of armour amongst them.
              Ornithischians and Theropods are physiologically so radically different, they dwarf the difference between eutherians and monotremes.
              Pretty much of popculture dinosaurs' woes can be traced to people not understanding this.

              Technically there's a good chance that they were derived silesaurs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                that wouldn't mean they weren't dinosaurs

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Technically you are right, dinosaur by definition "dinosaur" includes ornithischians, but even freaking pterosaurs can quasi-realistically be potential dinos under that context. Just pointing out that they could be significantly more teleonomically advanced than their theropod equivalents.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm of the strong opinion that Pterosaurs are not that closely related to Dinosaurs. Their first evidence appears long before dinosaurs and they pretty obviously don't descend from Proterosuchids. It's one of those circular beleifs in paleontology.

                "Dinosaurs are the closest relatives of Pterosaurs."
                Why?
                "Because we feel they're most closely similar to Dinosaurs."
                Why?
                "Because Dinosaurs are the closest relatives of Pterosaurs."

                Morphologically they don't have that much in common.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Dunno mate. Lagerpetids being pterosauromorphs kinda sealed the deal and the avicephalian hypothesis was never very convincing given how many shit could be convergnet.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Prorotodactylids exist before Proterosuchids. It's literally impossible for Pterosaurs to be Archosaurs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well, perhaps not before, but around the same time. Keep in mind, Pterosaurs were already fully evolved flying animals by around the time dinosaurs mastered bipedalism.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ALSO also, keep in mind that reptiles evolve fucking SLOW. Compare the entire Mesozoic with the diversity mammals achieved just from the Paleocene to the Eocene. This means there is a LONG hidden evolution to Pterosaurs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                According to wiki they lived in the Olenekian, proterosuchids lived since at least the Induan and ghost lineages of a few million years or an explosive radiation of archosauriforms at the end of the Permian are not unlikely.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Proterosuchids begin around 250 mya. Same for Prorotodactylids. Prolacerta is around 251-252 and is a progenator or uncle to Proterosuchids.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You have it backwards. Silesaurids are literally early Ornithischians.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The best anyone can tell, all dinosaurs were mesotherms at best and it's the supposedly FEATHERED dinosaurs that are estimated to have the lowest body temps, so no, sorry sweaty.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >That's like assuming mammals are hairless until proven otherwise
      And if the vast majority of mammals were known to be hairless and furry mammals were limited to mostly the small members of one specific branch of their family tree, that would be a perfectly valid assumption.

  3. 1 month ago
    SAGE

    Samefag.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When it comes to making assumptions on integument, the bias is always towards what the closest relative we have any integument traces for is like. Fossil record basically gives some conflicting ideas of when feathers actually started to appear so assuming scales until proven otherwise isn't really ideal, after all, all living dinosaurs are feathered.
    Basically the general trend you see is, if a fossil is found with feathers, all dinosaurs related to that fossil are assumed to be feathered too until evidence against is found. The same would go for scales. This isn't really some big push or conspiracy (though many paleoartists probably wish it was), it's just an extension of how the rest of paleontology works: If you don't know something, fill in those blanks with information from the closest relative you have information for.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the bias is always towards what the closest relative we have any integument traces for is like.
      Like hell it is. The bias is always towards what is trendy, and what is trendy is always what's contrarian. Almost every single integument for all dinosaurs we've discovered is scales. Theropods, Sauropods, Hadrosaurs, Thyreophorans, we have it all.

      Phylogenetic bracketing is yet another piece of fantasy masquerading as science. You can't bracket 10s of millions of years old dead animals. The best you can do is guess, unless you have a really damn good series and we don't for any feathered dinosaurs. Only scaled ones. There's also a tiny detail about feathered dinosaurs most people don't seem to know...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Holy cope
        >mentions Xu Xing as the feather shadow lord, even though Xing is the one who called out archaeoraptor, which you love to use as an example, as a fake
        >the ones that aren’t Chinese like Ornithomimus, Ubirajara and Sciurimimus aren’t real because they’re “fake looking” in your opinion which isn’t shared by literally anyone else

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Archaeoraptor is a literal false flag. It was a sacrificial lamb that nupaleoshits gave up to "prove" they can't be fooled by doctored chink fossils after the dragon bone trade started becoming more known about in dino circles.

          >the ones that aren’t Chinese like Ornithomimus, Ubirajara and Sciurimimus aren’t real because they’re “fake looking” in your opinion which isn’t shared by literally anyone else
          >Status quo shill
          >Literally can't read
          What a shock!

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anon...it's gotten worse...

    Not fearful enough of pronated hands (a term modern paleoshills don't seem to actually know the definition of), they've resorted to putting theropod hands on backwards now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    we get it paleoschizo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      whatever neochud

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >He knows who he is

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not a woman for sure.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    several dinosaurs could pronate their wrists.

    those that couldn't pronate were prevented by the radius and ulna being too short to effectively cross over each other in a twisting motion.

    wrist pronation isn't really a thing, they're talking about pronation of the hand by whatever mechanics is in place. Usually that means forearm rotation, though in dinosaurs pronation of the hand involves the elbow and shoulder.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One or more species of "raptor"-type dinos had feather imprints around the arms of its fossil(s). Definitely not all dinos, but the ones that evolved into modern-day birds certainly did, at least some of them.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder we have plenty of skin imprints and featherfags just ignore the evidence because they want to push their bullshit pet paleoart meme.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >WELL THESE AREAS DON'T COUNT, SO THEY MUST HAVE ONLY HAD FEATHERS ON THE PARTS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE SKIN SAMLPES FROM
      The definition of pseudoscience.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/Q6x3pZE.jpg

      >WELL THESE AREAS DON'T COUNT, SO THEY MUST HAVE ONLY HAD FEATHERS ON THE PARTS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE SKIN SAMLPES FROM
      The definition of pseudoscience.

      Nobody was talking about T. rex bro. We don’t have any Therizinosaurus skin impressions

    • 1 month ago
      Rajesh

      >Pet paleo art
      You wish, they just want feathered anthro furrsonas

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Elephants for example have wrinkly skin that increases surface area, making fur unnecessary, which is why giraffes, despite being taller and more active, have fur
    Thing about this is that elephants do have fur. Therizinosaurus very well could have had feathers, but how dense those would be is up to whoever is reconstructing it. Same goes for Deinocheirus

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Did dinosaurs have fused elbows or radius/ulna that would make such movement impossible?
    no, you can easily tell from the bones theyre fused, its probably has to do with how the bones are placed, like i think dogs can really pronate, but bear can sorta

Your email address will not be published.