Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
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 (256,218 Views)
Luca9108
Member Avatar
Master of Dinosaurs

Spinosaurus a bidepal crocodile?!! It is neither a crocodile or bidepal.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


BossAggron
Jul 17 2015, 10:25 PM
Wait did they call Spinosaurus a Crocodile, like I can't even tell if they are or not
At this point they might've said anything, im not versed in this strange form of elven language used on this text, tough i heard they speak this in Mordor, so you might have more luck over there.
Edited by Yi Qi, Jul 18 2015, 08:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinoBear
Member Avatar


Luca9108
Jul 18 2015, 02:01 AM
Spinosaurus a bidepal crocodile?!! It is neither a crocodile or bidepal.
Posted Image
Quadrupedalism isn't exactly agreed on for Spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Yi Qi
Jul 17 2015, 12:22 PM
Plus the reason the animals they compare T rex to have lost fur are VERY specific, and none have ANYTHING to do with size at all. Sloths are just as big as many elephants, yet hairier than MAMMOTHS. Why? Because there was never a pressure on them for the loss of integument, unlike both elephants and rhinos which remarkabley had aquatic ancestors.

http://albertonykus.deviantart.com/art/Mammals-and-Feathers-202658468
I'm going to play devil's advocate on something said in that link that annoys me.

Whenever people talk about feathers vs fur for anything dinosaur related, people always make points about feathers being better at everything because of their pennaceousness. I totally agree, pennaceous feathers are just better. They just are, the data says so, moving on.

What annoys me is when it's applied to T. rex, and they talk about insulation and size and bla bla bla, while I totally agree that T. rex was likely feathered on at least some or most parts of its body, it really pisses me off when people talk about non-maniraptoran feathers like they had the same properties as if they were pennaceous.

NO.

This has to stop.

We know from the fossil record that feathers did not get their vaned, complex structures until AT LEAST AFTER the therizinosauroids along the maniraptoran family tree. Tyrannosauroid and basal coelurosaur fossils show simple, hair like feathers with no obvious vanes/barbs/barbules/whatever akin to those of cassowary, but not as long in relation to bodysize.

While these are feathers, and while I do not question whether T. rex had them or not, it bothers me that people act like these structurally hair-like feathers will act upon an animal in the same manner as a modern bird's. This not how insulation works. Just because it's called a feather and that it's an evolutionary stage of feather development does not mean it insulates like a pennaceous feather. Their structure is superficially like hair. Their insulation properties would match that of hair. Not pennaceous feathers.

What applies for an eagle, a Utahraptor or even Gigantoraptor will not apply directly onto a giant tyrannosaurid.

There are many reasons why T. rex would not just lose all of its feathers and become this scaly roaring movie monster all these angry 12 year olds are trying desperately to preserve. But saying that their shaggy, hair-like feathers insulated like any regular bird's feathers is just not one of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Komodo
Member Avatar
Varanus komodoensis

DinoBear
Jul 18 2015, 06:06 PM
Luca9108
Jul 18 2015, 02:01 AM
Spinosaurus a bidepal crocodile?!! It is neither a crocodile or bidepal.
Posted Image
Quadrupedalism isn't exactly agreed on for Spinosaurus.
I assumed that Spinosaurus was regarded as a facultative biped (standing and walking on two legs for limited periods of time while being primarily quadruped).

I agree on your T.rex point, Incinerox. Some reconstructions like this or even more avian-like with pennaceous feathers and all, don't look plausible to me. As you said, primitive, ratite-like feathers seem like the best option. When old-school fanboys argue that T.rex couldn't be feathered because of risk of insulation, or it was born with feathers to lose them as it grew bigger, they imagine modern, complete structures. I always thought primitive, hair-like protofeathers couldn't work the same way that pennaceous feathes, so the non-maniraptorian coelurosaurs cover was certainly different and unique.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Incinerox
Jul 18 2015, 06:54 PM
There are many reasons why T. rex would not just lose all of its feathers and become this scaly roaring movie monster all these angry 12 year olds are trying desperately to preserve. But saying that their shaggy, hair-like feathers insulated like any regular bird's feathers is just not one of them.
That image didn't claim t rex feathers are pennaceous, it just argued that size, as we all know, has no relation with integument loss, its basically criticising the idea that animals will loose fur because "ther t3w b33g" while we have a lot of pratical evidence that this isn't the case. Nowhere in their point did they say t rex had pennaceous feathers or that protofeathers and pennaceous feathers are one in the same.

Elephants don't have reduced coats "because der beeg" it has primarily to do to the fact that they, alongside rhinoceroses, are descended from semi aquatic creatures. Whenever it gets a little (and i mean A LITTLE) cold they start sprouting fur right away. And you don't need palaeartic tundra for that, the mediterranean and freaking BORNEO will do.

besides, the link was mainly arguing as for large maniraptorans, but the main idea works for t rex just as well.

Quote:
 
We know from the fossil record that feathers did not get their vaned, complex structures until AT LEAST AFTER the therizinosauroids along the maniraptoran family tree.


False, Ornithomimosaurs had atleast primitive vaned wings from all that we know, and they weren't even inside the crown Maniraptoriformes, the group you call Maniraptora.

Pennaceous feathers did get to their full complexity after maniraptors but likely started before, somewhere between primitive maniraptoriforms and ornithomimosaurs.

rest of the point still stands tough, and i agree with it.

however, the point also stainds in which implying size as a reason for integument loss is bollocks.
Edited by Yi Qi, Jul 18 2015, 08:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Yeah, I still agree with that point. Size is a rubbish explanation for loss of fluff.

It just really bothers me when people assume all feathers would function in the same way, ignoring the fact that hair-like filaments, would have hair-like results, because, you know, hair-like.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleop
Member Avatar
Paleopterix

Incinerox
 
It just really bothers me when people assume all feathers would function in the same way, ignoring the fact that hair-like filaments, would have hair-like results, because, you know, hair-like.


me
 
isn't T rex a mesotherm?


Quote:
Mesotherm (Greek, meso = intermediate; thermē = "heat") refers to an animal organism that adjusts its body to a metabolically favourable temperature using a context dependent balance of internal metabolically produced heat and external environmentally derived heat.


this combined with feathers could potentially mean t rex saves allot of energy, by not needing to produce as much body heat

on another note, what about black or brown feathers?

on another note, would hair shaped proto feathers work like full filamentous feathers or not?



no one answered the underlined question, so thanks for answering :)

BTW is rex being a mesotherm a good reason to argue against a lack of feathers?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Paleop
Jul 19 2015, 12:25 AM
BTW is rex being a mesotherm a good reason to argue against a lack of feathers?


If anything its a good argument FOR feathers, you know what other large multiton animals had mesotherm like metabolisms?

Posted Image
Posted Image

Exactly.
Edited by Yi Qi, Jul 19 2015, 12:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Okeanos
Member Avatar


Yi Qi
Jul 19 2015, 12:32 AM
Paleop
Jul 19 2015, 12:25 AM
BTW is rex being a mesotherm a good reason to argue against a lack of feathers?


If anything its a good argument FOR feathers, you know what other large multiton animals had mesotherm like metabolisms?

Spoiler: click to toggle

Exactly.
That's what Paleop was saying. 'Is rex being a mesotherm a good reason to argue against a lack of feathers?'

You basically repeated his point xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Okeanos
Jul 19 2015, 04:18 AM
Yi Qi
Jul 19 2015, 12:32 AM
Paleop
Jul 19 2015, 12:25 AM
BTW is rex being a mesotherm a good reason to argue against a lack of feathers?


If anything its a good argument FOR feathers, you know what other large multiton animals had mesotherm like metabolisms?

Spoiler: click to toggle

Exactly.
That's what Paleop was saying. 'Is rex being a mesotherm a good reason to argue against a lack of feathers?'

You basically repeated his point xD
I misread the quote, i'm sorry, i tought he meant an argument against feathers but w/e
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Actually, another thing about this that bothers me:

Right so, you got all these movie monster fans viciously defending their scaly dream beast, making claims like "feathered dinosaurs are ruining my childhood".

It annoys me that so much attention has turned towards whether or not it had feathers that all arguments have ignored that literally every other aspect about T. rex has been proven to be even more badass than we could have predicted:

> T.rex were heavier than previously estimated.
> T.rex were geniuses by dinosaur standards.
> T.rex have the most extreme case of this special thing called "binocular vision" outside of the paravians.
> T.rex managed to become the ONLY large predator in Laramidia just by being more badass than everything else around it.
> T.rex's ideal tactic for attacking an angry T. rex is quite literally head on.
> Not only did T.rex decide to aim for the face of another T. rex with its OWN face, they could survive having braincases ripped apart (Stan), and having 2/3 of their tails completely severed off (Wyrex), and other pretty serious injuries which would kill basically anything else.
> They actually decapitated Triceratops to reach tasty neck muscles.

Look, I'll come clean, yes I am a huge T. rex fanboy. But all of what we know to be true about the way T. rex lived is FAR more metal than any scaly roaring movie monster could ever portray.

And everyone's bitching about feathers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Incinerox
Jul 19 2015, 06:09 AM
> T.rex managed to become the ONLY large predator in Laramidia just by being more badass than everything else around it.
I actually wonder if this could rather be because of less diversity among prey species ...
I mean, if we look at Nemegt and Dinosaur Park (where we have two different Tyrannosaurs coexisting), the number of large herbivore species was definately higher than Hell Creek, even when taking int oaccount that not all herbivores in DP lived together at the same time.

Which makes me wonder how much do we really know about Hell Creek ... we already have an astragalus from a Therizinosaur, so who knows what else could be out there. I wonder if we could have stumbled on new genera that got accidentally classified as something else by mistake.
Edited by Furka, Jul 19 2015, 06:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe99
Member Avatar


Incinerox
Jul 19 2015, 06:09 AM
Actually, another thing about this that bothers me:

Right so, you got all these movie monster fans viciously defending their scaly dream beast, making claims like "feathered dinosaurs are ruining my childhood".

It annoys me that so much attention has turned towards whether or not it had feathers that all arguments have ignored that literally every other aspect about T. rex has been proven to be even more badass than we could have predicted:

> T.rex were heavier than previously estimated.
> T.rex were geniuses by dinosaur standards.
> T.rex have the most extreme case of this special thing called "binocular vision" outside of the paravians.
> T.rex managed to become the ONLY large predator in Laramidia just by being more badass than everything else around it.
> T.rex's ideal tactic for attacking an angry T. rex is quite literally head on.
> Not only did T.rex decide to aim for the face of another T. rex with its OWN face, they could survive having braincases ripped apart (Stan), and having 2/3 of their tails completely severed off (Wyrex), and other pretty serious injuries which would kill basically anything else.
> They actually decapitated Triceratops to reach tasty neck muscles.

Look, I'll come clean, yes I am a huge T. rex fanboy. But all of what we know to be true about the way T. rex lived is FAR more metal than any scaly roaring movie monster could ever portray.

And everyone's bitching about feathers.
yea real rex is more badass than the bind,skinny and dumb JP counter part


IncineroxJul 19 2015, 10:09 PM
> T.rex managed to become the ONLY large predator in Laramidia just by being more badass than everything else around it.
I actually wonder if this could rather be because of less diversity among prey species ...
I mean, if we look at Nemegt and Dinosaur Park (where we have two different Tyrannosaurs coexisting), the number of large herbivore species was definately higher than Hell Creek, even when taking int oaccount that not all herbivores in DP lived together at the same time.

Which makes me wonder how much do we really know about Hell Creek ... we already have an astragalus from a Therizinosaur, so who knows what else could be out there. I wonder if we could have stumbled on new genera that got accidentally classified as something else by mistake.

well nano t is back kinda and im sure there is a lot more to be found but I would love to see a sauropod in hell creak
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleop
Member Avatar
Paleopterix

Incinerox
Jul 19 2015, 06:09 AM
Actually, another thing about this that bothers me:

Right so, you got all these movie monster fans viciously defending their scaly dream beast, making claims like "feathered dinosaurs are ruining my childhood".

It annoys me that so much attention has turned towards whether or not it had feathers that all arguments have ignored that literally every other aspect about T. rex has been proven to be even more badass than we could have predicted:

> T.rex were heavier than previously estimated.
> T.rex were geniuses by dinosaur standards.
> T.rex have the most extreme case of this special thing called "binocular vision" outside of the paravians.
> T.rex managed to become the ONLY large predator in Laramidia just by being more badass than everything else around it.
> T.rex's ideal tactic for attacking an angry T. rex is quite literally head on.
> Not only did T.rex decide to aim for the face of another T. rex with its OWN face, they could survive having braincases ripped apart (Stan), and having 2/3 of their tails completely severed off (Wyrex), and other pretty serious injuries which would kill basically anything else.
> They actually decapitated Triceratops to reach tasty neck muscles.

Look, I'll come clean, yes I am a huge T. rex fanboy. But all of what we know to be true about the way T. rex lived is FAR more metal than any scaly roaring movie monster could ever portray.

And everyone's bitching about feathers.
a bite force of 6.4 tons(1240lb of is it psi?) helps ;)

also rex no longer has the handicap of not being able to swim
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply