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: |
| What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,480 Views) | |
| Similis | Oct 15 2013, 01:48 AM Post #301 |
![]() ![]()
|
Where does your 20% of scaly coelurosaurs come from? That is a gigantic number for a clade that we know to be extremely likely to represent no bald genera.
Due to fact what, excuse me? I don't understand the first part other than that some of these animals were indeed found with other integument than just scales. And no, not a single dinosaur clade is 'closer' to crocodiles than to birds. Just as lemurs are closer to humans than they are to the guinea pigs. Clades don't lie. Dinosaur is always closer to a dinosaur than it is to a crocodile, otherwise the whole cladistics would be not required, we'd just group animals according to what we think they resembled, not to their evolutionary lines.
Pegomastax, Psittacosaurus, Tianyulong, unnamed siberian euornithopod. Look them up, the ornithopod you'll find in a link I posted in the topic with paleo info. Then please, do the research before advocating something that is not the case, because it'd really save me time writing all this everytime. You did restate the obvious - you didn't do your research and try to sneak wrong info as a valid argument
Edited by Similis, Oct 15 2013, 01:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| TyrantTR | Oct 15 2013, 01:50 AM Post #302 |
![]() ![]()
|
Now there is a couple things I will take issue with here. For one I am not entirely sure fluff in ornithischians is linked to size. For example Psittacosaurus has significantly less quills than the other known fluffy ornithischians and it certainly isn't by any means a large animal, probably not much smaller or bigger than the new fluffy guy. Simply put we don't have the data to make that assumption. I feel being as strictly scientifically objective as possible is the best way to handle these sorts of issues. Now I have admitted to you that Tyrannosaurus rex being feathered is a likely safe bet, but I have also demonstrated the possibilities, all strictly scientifically possible, by which it might not. And this is just keeping it to the two options of scaly and feathered. It could also have been nude, bare skin is seen in some gorgosaur impressions if I recall and likely existed on tyrannosaurs to some extent. (And though a complete loss of feathers is not seen in coelurosaurs, when feathers are lost it generally turns into bare skin) This is why refrain is often pushed on attaching certainty to any one outcome. I don't look forward to any given outcome for any given dinosaur's integument. I certainly used to, but bias is often the bane of scientific objectivity, and so I stopped caring. Now its fine to have an artistic preference, and by all means feel free to exercise it. I certainly do that as well (while also keeping a healthy open mind for possibilities) but don't confuse your bias for truths and facts. |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Oct 15 2013, 01:57 AM Post #303 |
![]() ![]()
|
Sure there is no certainity, but the possiblity is more than less on the feathered side and this is why I don't really view pushing towards the bald restorations as something normal. We can of course find out that these animals indeed became more bald, but they could've also been more feathered. Guess in the end I've spent too much time on the FeatherNazi DA page.
|
![]() |
|
| TyrantTR | Oct 15 2013, 02:09 AM Post #304 |
![]() ![]()
|
Haha that will certainly do it. No and for the most part I agree, there simply isn't much to suggest t. rex was bald. But we have depictions of sauropods with big inflatable pouches, ankylosaurs with fluffy beards, abelisaurs covered in a coat of feathers. These get a pass because they are speculative, and though I spose the difference is not many scaly rexes are done so in the spirit of speculation, I still do not see why they should not get a pass as well. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 15 2013, 02:18 AM Post #305 |
![]() ![]()
|
Alright, thanks for the new info. When i said "80%", i meant more like 95%, because I'm counting the early ones like Coelophysis and Gojirasaurus that may have been scaly. And second, i wasn't aware that other species were found with quills, because I don't really know where to find ceratopsid quills information. And my main point about non-coelorosaurs was that, to my knowledge, Ornithischians, Sauropods, and most theropods weren't as closely related to birds as Coelorosaurs are, so i find it unlikely that they would have feathers. I'd like to find a site where i can do some major research so i can stop making these false arguments and embarassing myself. Anyway, though I'm not really annoyed by speculative feathers on non -coelorosaurs per se, I am annoyed when paleoartists draw the feathers to look more like fur than feathers, such as this:![]() Now, i will give credit where credit is due, because this is a very beautifully-drawn illustration, there's just something really off about the feathers that bothers me. |
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Oct 15 2013, 02:23 AM Post #306 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
Fur-like feathers would generally be more primitive and thus more likely to see on a dinosaur. By the way, feathers can be quite fur-like even in avians:
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 15 2013, 02:38 AM Post #307 |
![]() ![]()
|
.....I'm learning more about dinosaurs on a forum dedicated to a children's game then i would watching a documentary.
|
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Oct 15 2013, 02:41 AM Post #308 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
Well that's good, no? Knowledge is power! Before I joined the community I was pathetically out of the know with paleontology; I'm ashamed to say I thought pterosaurs were cold-blooded. D: You learn a lot in the community. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 15 2013, 05:29 AM Post #309 |
![]() ![]()
|
I think feathers for dinosaurs would have been like hair for mammals: all dinosaurs had them in some form or another (I do think many dinosaurs had scales, just that in my opinion those scales were probably modified feathers rather than true scales, similar to how rhino skin is made up of matted hair if I remember correctly).
Edited by CyborgIguana, Oct 15 2013, 05:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Oct 15 2013, 05:43 AM Post #310 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
Rhinos horns are made of matted hair, not their skin. Otherwise I'd agree.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 15 2013, 07:48 AM Post #311 |
![]() ![]()
|
On another note, I'm annoyed by paleo-fans who still think that Quetzalcoatlus was a coastal skimmer or a vulture-like scavenger. Sure, it may have scavenged on occasion, but even when it did I think it would've been scaring Rexes away from their kills rather than trailing dying sauropods like vultures. Far more often it would've been stalking through the ferns, gobbling up unlucky titanosaur hatchlings. Those who think it was a piscivore like Pteranodon but bigger are even less forgiveable, even 30 seconds of Googling would reveal that it lived MILES from the sea or any body of water. There's no way it could've been a fish-eater. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Oct 15 2013, 07:52 AM Post #312 |
![]() ![]()
|
maybe it could have also fished like a heron if it had the chance ? many species of storks and herons often switch between aquatic and terrestrial animals diet (and in the case of marabou they also scavenge). |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 15 2013, 07:56 AM Post #313 |
![]() ![]()
|
I agree. It's just that saying it was exclusively a scavenger or piscivore is blatantly incorrect. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 17 2013, 07:31 PM Post #314 |
![]()
★
![]()
|
![]() Everything about this picture. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 17 2013, 07:35 PM Post #315 |
![]() ![]()
|
What is that? A four-armed monster? |
![]() |
|
| 4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups









And my main point about non-coelorosaurs was that, to my knowledge, Ornithischians, Sauropods, and most theropods weren't as closely related to birds as Coelorosaurs are, so i find it unlikely that they would have feathers. I'd like to find a site where i can do some major research so i can stop making these false arguments and embarassing myself. Anyway, though I'm not really annoyed by speculative feathers on non -coelorosaurs per se, I am annoyed when paleoartists draw the feathers to look more like fur than feathers, such as this:






