Dinosaur Thread

[believe victims]

Let's talk about dinosaurs. I don't experience nearly enough discussions about dinosaurs, so let's get some dialogue going. How do you feel about dinosaurs? Any dinosaur questions? How about those discoveries with Dreadnoughtus and Spinosaurus and finally finding more than arms of Deinocheirus?

 

A few things: discussion of the latest Michael Bay trainwreck probably belongs here, unless it is explicitly dinosaur-related moreso than Transformers related. There isn't an official Jurassic Park topic that I know of, but non-explicitly-saurian discussion of the tetralogy should probably have its own topic. This is the dino thread, where we discuss dinos.

 

So. Who has dino things to discuss?

[toa grimlock]

When you say dinos do include Terasuars or not.

[believe victims]

When you say dinos do include Terasuars or not.

 

I'm assuming you mean "pterosaurs". No, they don't quite count, though I guess discussion of them in this topic is okay? They lived in the same general time period and were possibly related. They just don't fall under the definition of "dinosaur" because they split off evolutionarily before dinosaurs became the group we know of as dinosaurs.

 

That's not to discount pterosaurs; there were pterosaurs the size of giraffes that may have hunted small dinosaurs. Pterosaurs were pretty great.

[Van Hohenheim]

The Brontosaurus is my favorite dinosaur

[believe victims]

The Brontosaurus is my favorite dinosaur

 

are you doing this to me on purpose

[Angel Beat]

Dinosaurs in multimedia definitely need more magnificent plumage.

[Cambion]

 

The Brontosaurus is my favorite dinosaur

 

are you doing this to me on purpose

 

why do you say that?

 

as it happens, the Brontosaurus is my favourite dinosaur too

[Nescent]

I don't know much about dinosaurs but when I was a kid, I was obsessed with them. Like, for 10 years, all I ever wanted to be was an archaeologist. My favorite was the Brachiosaurus (I believe that was the name) because it had nostrils on the top of its head.

 

I did rewatch like eight dinosaur documentaries recently. They made me nostalgic.

[believe victims]

My favorite was the Brachiosaurus (I believe that was the name) because it had nostrils on the top of its head.

You're going to be a little disappointed, then; paleontologists now believe the nostrils were in a more traditional position on the snout. They assumed before that the nostrils were on top of the head because that's where the nasal cavity is, but that's when you fall prey to relying too much on the skeleton.

[toa grimlock]

Am I the only one who can't get over the fact that dinosaurs supposedly had feathers?

[Cambion]

Am I the only one who can't get over the fact that dinosaurs supposedly had feathers?

do you mean that in a positive or negative way?

[toa grimlock]

Little of both because it means feathers are older than once thought, but it also kind of ruins the idea of the hole terrifying beasts idea of certain ones. I mean think about it, if you were to come across a big fluffy raptor, you probably wouldn't be as intimidated as if it were the creepy featherless one.

 

I accept that it's fact, but you don't have to like facts.

[Nescent]

Some of the artistic renditions of feathered dinosaurs do look pretty scary.

[Cambion]

if you were to come across a big fluffy raptor, you probably wouldn't be as intimidated as if it were the creepy featherless one.

"fluffy" doesn't necessarily mean "cute". i'm no expert, but i'm fairly certain some feathered dinosaurs used their feathers as a means of intimidation.

[Pohatu: Uniter of Stone]

If it is absolutely true that most theropods had feathers, it would be AWESOME. 

[toa grimlock]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I meant. I never meant that fluffy means cute, or that something fluffy can't be intimidating. I meant that, at least to me anyways, a fluffy Dino wouldn't be as intimidating as one that looks like a lizard.

[dotcom]

Dinosaurs are pretty interesting. When I was younger I would buy a ton of books about them, though by now they're probably very much outdated. Still a fascinating topic, though. The fact that people are learning more and more about dinosaurs is always cool.

 

 

All I can think about when I hear the word Brontosaurus.

[believe victims]

Little of both because it means feathers are older than once thought, but it also kind of ruins the idea of the hole terrifying beasts idea of certain ones. I mean think about it, if you were to come across a big fluffy raptor, you probably wouldn't be as intimidated as if it were the creepy featherless one.

 

I accept that it's fact, but you don't have to like facts.

 

Once, I would have responded by saying "feathers were awesome shut up", but I know better than that now. Not because I think feathered dinosaurs weren't cool, but because to assert that they were is just feeding into the problem.

 

Instead, I'm just going to say this: let go of the idea that dinosaurs had to be awesome. Let go of Jurassic Park movie monsters, let go of the jungle-or-desert volcanoes-everywhere earth of paleoart, even let go of the idea of the "terrible lizard".

 

Now just remember this: dinosaurs weren't monsters. They weren't some terrifying creatures designed to be horrendous. They were animals. A lot of them were larger animals than we are used to, but they were animals nonetheless. And animals do not care what you think is awesome, or how you think they should look or act. Animals are the way they are.

 

The reason people have a hard time accepting this is because dinosaurs have become a part of a culture I once saw called "awesomebro culture". I'd link to the post in question, but unfortunately it contains a slur I am uncomfortable with and do not desire to share because of that. Basically, though, awesomebro culture is what creates phrases like "DINOSAUR NINJAS ON A SPACESHIP WITH LASER CANNONS AWESOME". By becoming part of that culture, dinosaurs suddenly gained an obligation to be awesome in people's eyes, and as a result, anything they perceive as making them not awesome is bad, and "ruining" dinosaurs. This alone is the plague choking out public interest in paleontology. This is why we haven't gotten many good dinosaur documentaries in almost two decades, because they feel obligated to make dinosaurs seem more "awesome" than modern animals. This is why people whine in the comments of dinosaur news articles about how science is "ruining" dinosaurs. This is why Jurassic World has chosen to ignore practically three decades of paleontological progress in favor of pandering to nostalgic views of what Jurassic Park dinosaurs should be.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is, dinosaurs may not have been everyone's idea of awesome, and you know what? That doesn't change anything. This is our best understanding of what dinosaurs were like, plain and simple. If you dislike that, fine, enjoy your movie monsters with slobbering jaws and elephantine grey skin. But just remember every day you do so that what you're enjoying isn't dinosaurs. You stopped loving dinosaurs long ago. What you love now is a crude, outdated facsimile that you cling to like a security blanket because it's "awesome".

 

EDIT: I suppose I should apologize because this is kind of over the top compared to what you said. This is mostly letting out a lot of my irritation with the general idea of people refusing to accept feathers rather than being specifically aimed at you. The last paragraph, in particular, isn't supposed to be specifically aimed at you, but more at the idea of refusing to accept modern paleontology in general.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Wally

[toa grimlock]

All of your points are valid, however saying simply because someone doesn't like but yet excepts nonetheless, they are furthering the dumb nostalgia vision version of dinosaurs is offensive. I don't like the idea of dinosaurs have feathers because dinosaurs are lizards, which of the lizards I can think of don't have feathers. Honestly, I like it when new things are discovered about well known species that change the status quo. It shows how little we really truly don't know.

[believe victims]

All of your points are valid, however saying simply because someone doesn't like but yet excepts nonetheless, they are furthering the dumb nostalgia vision version of dinosaurs is offensive.

 

I didn't say if they dislike yet accept, I said if they place their pleasure in a depiction of a dinosaur over its accuracy.

 

 

I don't like the idea of dinosaurs have feathers because dinosaurs are lizards, which of the lizards I can think of don't have feathers.

 

They aren't lizards. Lizards are a specific group of reptile. Turtles aren't lizards. Crocodiles aren't lizards. Similarly, dinosaurs aren't lizards. And even among reptiles, dinosaurs have several distinguishing features, such as their upright leg posture that holds their belly off the ground. Remember, this is the group that eventually developed into birds. Amongst reptiles, they were groundbreakers.

 

However, as I said, I did let myself get a little heated at the thought of all the people out there who deny true dinosaurs because they think they weren't "awesome", and that led to a rant that, while accurate and biting, was also a little misdirected. I apologize.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Wally

[LegoSWfan]

I like featherless theropods better than feathered ones.

[believe victims]

I like featherless theropods better than feathered ones.

Well, your pool of theropods you can like is rapidly shrinking, then.

[LegoSWfan]

I know. There are but a few drops left in the vast desert.

[believe victims]

I don't see any desert. It's more like a vast meadow of flowers and you're choosing to ignore a large amount of them because you dislike their petal shape.

[LegoSWfan]

Perhaps some of us prefer the rock studded desert to the smelly and sneeze inducing meadow.

Edited December 8, 2014 by ToaSalvus

[believe victims]

Ok, you lost me. Are you saying feathered theropods are smelly and sneeze-inducing?

 

Besides, in my metaphor, all dinosaurs were flowers. You weren't ignoring all of them, just those whose petal shape you couldn't appreciate. That makes a more logical comparison to me than meadows and coastlines.

[LegoSWfan]

Ok, let's dump the metaphors, their getting us both confused.

 

I don't like feathered theropods, you do. Let us both keep our opinions and not get into an argument about it.

[Nescent]

I'd like to think I was never part of this "awesomebro culture," but I did see dinosaurs more like monsters than animals before reading your post. I guess I've always thought "oh geez that gigantic thing could crush me" instead of picturing it in the wild, when humans weren't around. Dinosaurs were huge because their prey was also huge which, as I say in my signature, makes them relatively less monstrous.

[BBCCD]

People who think dinosaurs with feathers wouldn't be as scary...

 

Are you suggesting eagles aren't intimidating because they too are feathered?

[Seaborgium]

Some of the artistic renditions of feathered dinosaurs do look pretty scary.

I tend to find them rather cute.

 

Of course I also find tarantulas strangely endearing, so there you have it.

[Takamasaurus]

WOW a topic I can get into.  I collect Dinosaurs from many different brands some are more Intricate then others, and recently i have been commissioning a Paleo artist to make my own line of Prehistoric models, made according to modern science (meaning some Theropods will be feathered).

 

I can tell alot about these magnificent creatures. For instance 

 

 

 

 Most of the Dinosaurs that we know had feathers fall into the  Coelurosaria family, which include Ostrich mimics, Raptors, and Even Tyrannosaurus Rex. Yes, even the King was likely feathered thanks to the discovery of one of its older cousins called Yutyrannus. Rather or not anyone likes them like that is a matter of opino and personal taste, but it must be rememberd that a Scaly Velociraptor is no longer an acurate Depiction.

 

Here is what they would look like

 

 

Art by Emily Willoughby

 

 

 

 

 

I can Go and Explain more things to you guys, but when i lurked on here back in 2006-2010, there was a Thread on dinosaurs, but it was closed for discussion of Evolution.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Takamasaurus

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

I think dinosaurs are pretty cool, I was quite obsessed with them as a kid. However, as I grew up, I went from pre-history to human history, and now that is more of my specialty (notice the ancient-to-medieval Romans in my banner)

I know I will be ridiculed for this, but I have my reasons for believing as such: as a child I believed in evolution, but as i grew up that belief faded and I currently do not believe in macro-evolution. This makes discussing prehistoric things a bit interesting when the topic pops up (which it scarcely does, as one can imagine).

 

 

Now that that is over with, I want to say that my favorite dinosaurs would have to be those that rely on fish, like Irratator and Spinosaurus. There is one more that belongs in that group, but it's name escapes me. I find that the appearance of Charcharadontosaurus (spelling error most likely) had a cool appearance from many artist renditions.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Iaredios

[believe victims]

 Most of the Dinosaurs that we know had feathers fall into the  Coelurosaria family, which include Ostrich mimics, Raptors, and Even Tyrannosaurus Rex. Yes, even the King was likely feathered thanks to the discovery of one of its older cousins called Yutyrannus. Rather or not anyone likes them like that is a matter of opino and personal taste, but it must be rememberd that a Scaly Velociraptor is no longer an acurate Depiction.

 

I think it's actually important to note the dinosaurs we know had feather-like structures that weren't Coelurosaurs, especially those like Kulindadromeus that are ornithischians, thus opening the doors to feathers (at least simple feathers) being basal to all of Dinosauria, which means any dinosaur could conceivably have been at least partially feathered (barring fossil evidence to the contrary, such as skin impressions.) It's like being on the brink of the next Dinosaur Renaissance, one that tears away the perception of the wrinkly, scaly, grey-green elephantine creatures of before and instead explores a large variety of possible integuments and structures and seeks to breath new life into old bones by bringing them even closer to the realm of true understanding.

 

I can Go and Explain more things to you guys, but when i lurked on here back in 2006-2010, there was a Thread on dinosaurs, but it was closed for discussion of Evolution.

 

Now that I certainly find strange, as I've been told directly by friends on the staff that discussion of evolution is not prohibited, merely discussion of the false controversy surrounding it. I'd imagine it was the latter that lead to the topic's demise.

 

Now that that is over with, I want to say that my favorite dinosaurs would have to be those that rely on fish, like Irratator and Spinosaurus. There is one more that belongs in that group, but it's name escapes me.

 

Perhaps you mean Suchomimus or Baryonyx? Most likely the latter, as of the two, Baryonyx is slightly better-known.

 

Most interestingly, a new study on Spinosaurus found it may have been radically different from its relatives in its level of adaptations to semiaquatic life. Most notably, they found its legs are likely much smaller than predicted based on other spinosaurids. The extent to which they were shortened is something I last saw still being contested, but I'm under the impression it's at least certain the animal's legs were much shorter than previously thought.

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

Baryonyx! There's the one! And I wouldn't be surprised, paleontologists have been known to jump ahead of themselves every now and then. That doesn't mean that they are all untrustworthy, but if something new pops up, don't be surprised. It's usually not the people working there but the nature of the field itself.

 

I mean, I know Spinosaurus was nothing like how it was in Jurassic Park III.

[believe victims]

No, in fact, in an almost unprecedented move in the JP franchise (I'm looking at you, Dilophosaurus) they actually made their Spinosaurus too small.

 

It's not exactly a case of palaeontologists jumping ahead of themselves, though; they simply did not have the fossil evidence required to accurately reconstruct it (which certainly wasn't helped by the holotype specimen being destroyed in WWII!), and were instead left to guess based on other spinosaurids. It wasn't until the description of a new fossil of a subadult's legs that we could begin to piece together the new proportions.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I meant. I never meant that fluffy means cute, or that something fluffy can't be intimidating. I meant that, at least to me anyways, a fluffy Dino wouldn't be as intimidating as one that looks like a lizard.

Well being that while I love Raptors, both the dinosaurs and Birds of Prey variety, I have had a fear of chickens since I was young when one, attacked me at a petting zoo. Over 15-ish years later and I still have a buried fear of them. Ironic seeing as how the actual Velociraptor, JP not withstanding was really no bigger than a large chicken.

 

I'd like to think I was never part of this "awesomebro culture," but I did see dinosaurs more like monsters than animals before reading your post. I guess I've always thought "oh geez that gigantic thing could crush me" instead of picturing it in the wild, when humans weren't around. Dinosaurs were huge because their prey was also huge which, as I say in my signature, makes them relatively less monstrous.

Well one of the main reasons Dinosaurs were so large was due to the oxygen saturation. This is believed to be why bug of that generation were equally large. Ever seen a dragonfly? well 60 something million years ago you could ride one like a small horse. As for calling them monsters that while coined by the JP movies is not exactly far from the truth. Not because they were evil or bloodthirsty... well no more than any other reptile today... but because of their large stature. "I have a monster appetite" means I am really hungry. "That shark was a monster" Means it was an unusually large.

 

No, in fact, in an almost unprecedented move in the JP franchise (I'm looking at you, Dilophosaurus) they actually made their Spinosaurus too small.

 

It's not exactly a case of palaeontologists jumping ahead of themselves, though; they simply did not have the fossil evidence required to accurately reconstruct it (which certainly wasn't helped by the holotype specimen being destroyed in WWII!), and were instead left to guess based on other spinosaurids. It wasn't until the description of a new fossil of a subadult's legs that we could begin to piece together the new proportions.

 

Ah, I am surprised with how long it took to bring up this beauty. Yes some believe JP took some liberties with how they depicted Dilophosaurus. First I will debunk the common misconception they made that specimen too small. Well first it was a baby, also the fat-man referenced there were larger ones out there in the enclosure. The second being both the frill and spitting. Well while there is no fossil evidence to prove either of things are true, but they cannot really prove it was not. Now maybe the frill could be debunked based on possible muscle attachment points on the bones, but much like shark skeletons, there wont be any fossil evidence if a creature could spit or what substance. So this is a "poetic" license they took that really can't be proven either way.

 

On a side note, Saying a specimen is too small is illogical unless it is so small to be even more so than a hatchling. One can only really say one is too big, never really too small.

[Sybre]

I really hope I'm not stepping on some kind of mine, but I was always a fan of the big man himself: Tyrannosaurus rex. The T-Rex fascinates me. It's just so amazing and powerful.

 

I'm curious; would some of you think that the T-Rex had feathers at some point? Just wondering.

[Takamasaurus]

 

 Most of the Dinosaurs that we know had feathers fall into the  Coelurosaria family, which include Ostrich mimics, Raptors, and Even Tyrannosaurus Rex. Yes, even the King was likely feathered thanks to the discovery of one of its older cousins called Yutyrannus. Rather or not anyone likes them like that is a matter of opino and personal taste, but it must be rememberd that a Scaly Velociraptor is no longer an acurate Depiction.

 

I think it's actually important to note the dinosaurs we know had feather-like structures that weren't Coelurosaurs, especially those like Kulindadromeus that are ornithischians, thus opening the doors to feathers (at least simple feathers) being basal to all of Dinosauria, which means any dinosaur could conceivably have been at least partially feathered (barring fossil evidence to the contrary, such as skin impressions.) It's like being on the brink of the next Dinosaur Renaissance, one that tears away the perception of the wrinkly, scaly, grey-green elephantine creatures of before and instead explores a large variety of possible integuments and structures and seeks to breath new life into old bones by bringing them even closer to the realm of true understanding.

 

I can Go and Explain more things to you guys, but when i lurked on here back in 2006-2010, there was a Thread on dinosaurs, but it was closed for discussion of Evolution.

 

Now that I certainly find strange, as I've been told directly by friends on the staff that discussion of evolution is not prohibited, merely discussion of the false controversy surrounding it. I'd imagine it was the latter that lead to the topic's demise.

 

Now that that is over with, I want to say that my favorite dinosaurs would have to be those that rely on fish, like Irratator and Spinosaurus. There is one more that belongs in that group, but it's name escapes me.

 

Perhaps you mean Suchomimus or Baryonyx? Most likely the latter, as of the two, Baryonyx is slightly better-known.

 

Most interestingly, a new study on Spinosaurus found it may have been radically different from its relatives in its level of adaptations to semiaquatic life. Most notably, they found its legs are likely much smaller than predicted based on other spinosaurids. The extent to which they were shortened is something I last saw still being contested, but I'm under the impression it's at least certain the animal's legs were much shorter than previously thought.

 

 

I am aware of Ornithosuchians with feathers. Such as Psittacaosaurus, and Yes, Kulindadromeous. Of course not all Scientists agree that the structures on Kulindadromeus were real feathers, but feather like structures.   Also, yes, Spinosaurus has gotten a Dramatic Overhaul, so much so that its being debated to be a quadruped

 

 

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

I have to say, i prefer the Spinosaurus as a therapod.

 

And, really!? Jurassic Park downplayed it's size; huh, how 'bout that. Would it have really stalked humans and travelled along land for such a long period of time, like in the movie?

[Takamasaurus]

Well Spinosaurus is Still a Theropod, Just a highly specialized one.