Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Carnotaurus doesn't have scales afterall | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 2 2016, 10:10 PM (3,362 Views) | |
|
|
Mar 2 2016, 10:10 PM Post #1 |
![]() ![]()
|
http://theropoda.blogspot.ca/2016/03/miti-e-leggende-post-moderne-sui.html?m=1 well, at least that we know of. The article is in Italian, but from what I gathered, basically there is no mentions of scales in the paper, and the only known photographs of its skin impressions don't show scales. Also takes note of how we have no skin impressions from the animal's dorsal side. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Mar 2 2016, 11:47 PM Post #2 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
Hmm I can't translate that But it does open the idea of pangolin like covering where the scales were more like hardened feathers. If that was in the article I apologize but I can't read that. Lol |
![]() |
|
| the dark phoenix | Mar 3 2016, 04:21 AM Post #3 |
|
King of wonderlandia
![]()
|
I don't do Italian either and google translate isn't always the greatest. Someone did translate it at ZTV and it ended up talking about football. This would be interesting if we knew what the damn thing means... |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Mar 3 2016, 04:27 AM Post #4 |
![]() ![]()
|
It talks about football because it makes a comparison about how there's always someone who believes to be a football expert, just like there are those people who think they are dino experts because they read a couple books and visit wiki and they know all those basic things which are actually common knowledge and might not even be exactly true. Carnotaurus being the case here, because everyone kleeps saying it's scaly and yet it was never said to be. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Mar 3 2016, 05:47 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
This is bogus. All of it. Everyone here's freaking out about Carnotaurus not having scales, when even google translate makes "scales" and "flakes" distinct. By "flakes", I'm more convinced he meant "plates". Like those on the backs and tails of crocodilians (which has become a bit of a meme in paleoart). The article actually cites Boneparte's findings of small protuberances along parts of the right side of the animal. Which is fine. That's what Bonaparte's paper says. Nothing more or less. But what I find bogus is that Cau (who I find to be among the more "radical" minds in the field anyway) completely ignored Czerkas's 1997 paper, which suggests far more extensive impressions, with known texture from the back showing the same data (which is why we even know of osteoderms arranged in rows along the back and flanks in the first place). Even some parts of the FACE are known. And to my knowledge Czerkas and Bonaparte are the ONLY two people to have seen the bloody thing anyway. And Czerkas died a few years ago. Where is this specimen? Why has no one bothered to look at it now that the only person to have done a detailed analysis on the integument is gone? Cau has done literally the exact same thing he's calling out other people for. It's disgraceful. I generally don't like Cau's science anyway. I've made similar rants about him before for other things. Also, the football thing was a joke. He's taking the piss out of how all sports fans claim themselves to know more about what SHOULD be going on at the pitch than the playing teams themselves. Edited by Incinerox, Mar 3 2016, 05:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 11:32 AM Post #6 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
You're not exactly free from bias here either dude. It's pretty well known that your opinions are very conservative so please excuse us for taking "yah well he's a hypocrite" less seriously than actual photos we can see for ourselves that pretty clearly show a covering of thick skin interspersed with small raised structures. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Mar 3 2016, 11:37 AM Post #7 |
![]() ![]()
|
According to Wikipedia at least, the face pieces did exist but we're destroyed in preparation. It also makes no mention of any material from the back. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Mar 3 2016, 12:02 PM Post #8 |
![]() ![]()
|
Not to mention that a scaly head is hardly sufficient evidence for a lack of feathers on the dorsal region. Look at the reconstruction displayed on Cau's blog post, it clearly has a scaly/naked head as well. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Mar 3 2016, 01:23 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Excuse me?!
Another thing as well that Cau "forgot" to mention was that Bonaparte's paper actually directly references the osteoderms on the flanks and back as well. He compared them to those seen on the backs of several hadrosaurid species. What Cau DID mention was that images of the specimen are scarce. The one on his blog represents a copy of the ONLY pics that made it to the internet. The specimen itself is supposed to be about 90% complete, and yet even pictures of the actual bones themselves are rare, let alone the skin (Bonaparte's paper actually does a good job describing the skeleton itself, but barely anything on skin). Just because there's one photo on the internet doesn't make that the be all and end all. It's almost like you read "this is bogus" and stopped reading the rest of the thing to preserve the rampant "feather ALL the things" attitude that floods this place so very often. Your post was a blatant ad hominem, attacking my supposedly conservative way of thinking (which is ALSO complete bogus) over the actual content of my post. I hope you're feeling pretty good about yourself right now. One last thing: Czerkas, S.A. and Czerkas, S.J., 1997. The integument and life restoration of Carnotaurus. In Dinofest International, Proceedings of the Symposium at Arizona State University (pp. 155-158). That's the paper with the details everyone seems to have forgotten in this topic. Knock yourselves out because I'm struggling to get a link. Edited by Incinerox, Mar 3 2016, 01:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 01:34 PM Post #10 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
It'd be nice to actually have such a paper, or at least its abstract. I'm well aware that he's dead what does screaming this at me again accomplish? Aah yes, so because we only have one photograph that doesn't prove the entire specimen looked like it. Certainly true but by that logic I might as well give Archelon pycnofibres because we don't have impressions from its entire body. The proper scientific method demands that we follow what evidence we have, which is this set of photographs, and not these rumors you're so intent on spreading. My argument actually wasn't an ad hominem, I never attacked you. All I said was that we should be taking the actual photographic evidence at hand more seriously than your unsubstantiated accusations for which you have failed to supply any sources. I never mentioned feathers once, I mentioned that the actual evidence we have doesn't show scales. And since you asked actually I'm feeling very good about myself right now because you've successfully proven you are fine with relying on internet myths and never-seen photographs and are willing to claim those relying on actual visible evidence are attacking you. The big red text helped a lot to prove my points by the way so thanks for that. Now that my mate, is how you do an effective ad hominem. Edited by stargatedalek, Mar 3 2016, 01:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| HENDRIX | Mar 3 2016, 02:13 PM Post #11 |
![]()
-retired-
![]()
|
The paper is published as part of a symposium, which usually makes it hard to get. I couldn't find the paper either, but I found something else!
Which I would roughly translate as: Negative mold of skin fragments on the tail of Carnotaurus. Note the impressions that represent conic spines (scale 10 cm) (from Czerkas 1997) Now this pictures the same fragment as the one on Cau's site, but is in slightly better quality. Here's also the bit where he compares the scutes to hadrosaur scutes:
My translation: These are distinguished from typical dinosaur scales, with diameters between 5 and 10-12 mm. There is a basic uniformity in tubercles found all over the body. Carnotaurus also shows conical protrusions about 8 to 10 cm apart, aligned irregular rows along the sides of the animal. These structures are between 4 and 5 cm in diameter. The height of the largest protrusions is uncertain, but it could easily reach 3-5 cm. The abundant conical protrusions which distinguish Carnotaurus skin from other dinosaurs was probably made of a hypertrophied (=overgrown) group of compact scales, similar to that observed in the dermal spines along the back of hadrosaurs. Together, they form a single conical bulge that often seems to have a slight median keel. The conical protuberances of Carnotaurus would have provided some degree of protection during fighting, especially against other theropods. source: http://projectos.cienciaviva.pt/pw011/jazidas/integumento_carnotaurus.html Edited by HENDRIX, Mar 3 2016, 02:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 02:39 PM Post #12 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
That is completely in-line with Cau's arguments and mine so I fail to understand the intention. But thanks for finding it anyway.
Edited by stargatedalek, Mar 3 2016, 02:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| HENDRIX | Mar 3 2016, 02:47 PM Post #13 |
![]()
-retired-
![]()
|
In case you do not accept that as a valid source, what I posted are quotes from Czerkas' paper (posted on a patagonian government site, I should add). That's as close to the paper as we can get and far from "rumours". Concerning the content; if I may repeat:
I'm not sure how that doesn't conflict with Cau? |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Mar 3 2016, 02:47 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Space saving Huh, got ninja'd by DM. DM you legend, you! Edited by Incinerox, Mar 3 2016, 02:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 02:52 PM Post #15 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I never challenged the validity, you're obviously just pissy at me cause I called your buddy out. Cau never challenged that there were raised structures on Carnotaurus, just that it was covered by scales. Your evidence simply further shows that Carnotaurus was covered predominantly by skin with structures (potentially scales/osteoderms etc.) interspersed within. Which is exactly what I've been saying this entire time. But of course no one cares about what I'm actually saying, just that I'm disagreeing with the almighty Incinerox. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups














