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 (256,135 Views) | |
| Imperator Furiosa | Feb 27 2017, 06:38 PM Post #5476 |
![]()
Chaos Theory
![]()
|
It's absolutely true that it's hard to update exhibits in a museum, especially if there isn't much of a public interest (for example, the Africa! exhibit at the Field which was built in 1992 IIRC and looks the part). However, I don't work in the exhibits themselves, rather I'm on the main floor and usually interact with guests who are just arriving at the museum. And my program just updated our specific Tully Monster fact cards maybe a month ago. The fact that any discussion about updating again got shut down pretty quickly was more what annoyed me. I assume my supervisor meant waiting for our scientists to publish a statement? I'm not certain though, her wording was kind of odd. Edited by Imperator Furiosa, Feb 27 2017, 06:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| magpiealamode | Feb 27 2017, 06:44 PM Post #5477 |
![]()
No good hero is a one-trick phony.
![]()
|
Ah. Well, I hope everything works out and civilization as we know it doesn't come crashing down due to confusion about the Tully Monster. On the off chance that it does, I won't blame you |
![]() |
|
| Denomon3144 | Jul 9 2017, 04:03 PM Post #5478 |
![]()
Pick a god and pray!
![]()
|
![]() I'm a HUGE Nintendo fan, but this still bothered me when it was revealed in Super Mario Odyssey's E3 trailer last month. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jul 10 2017, 04:42 AM Post #5479 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
How is it that you can have an animal, especially a clade namer of particular historical importance, that's completely known from multiple specimens and dozens of papers on its biomechanics and ecology, but somehow it manages to go nearly 200 years without being properly documented in image form in scientific literature. I'm looking at you, Mosasaurus. 128 vertebrae in a complete series, 14 of which are actually restored and diagrammed properly in isolation (we do have pics of a complete tail, but it's pretty mangled, and we have the neck and head in context, but still within a rock matrix). Yet those that are imaged in schematic views don't have info on where they go in context with other vertebrae. Despite being known from multiple complete skulls, only a fraction of the bones in the skull are represented in lateral view. And so when you look up mosasaurus skull restorations in scientific literature, they're astonishingly inconsistent as a result. I'm currently panicking over a lack of pterygoid bone pics because apparently most restorations of mosasaur skulls just show the pterygoid teeth just peeking out from behind the jugals, when they might actually be very prominent structures that don't run exactly parallel with the rest of the skull. But I can't tell without ****ing PICS! Literally the only part of a Mosasaurus you can reliably draw is the front flipper. That's it. 200 years worth of huge, iconic marine reptile finds, and all we can restore properly are flippers because of how badly documented the genus is in image form. I'm trying to make a skeletal restoration of Mosasaurus hoffmanni. I spent a lot of time wondering why Tylosaurus and Platecarpus have loads of skeletal reconstructions, but Mosasaurus doesn't. Didn't seem all that fair on THE mosasaur. But this is why. Lesson to all you budding paleontologists out there. PHOTOGRAPH YOUR FINDINGS. PHOTOGRAPH THEM IN DETAIL, AND FROM AS MANY ANGLES AS YOU CAN. Edited by Incinerox, Jul 10 2017, 04:42 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Imperator Furiosa | Jul 29 2017, 05:29 PM Post #5480 |
![]()
Chaos Theory
![]()
|
![]() Dinosaur toy at the Royal Ontario Museum. I thought we'd moved on from the Godzilla days? |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 29 2017, 10:00 PM Post #5481 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
Gotta love the Papo bootlegs in the background too, they really help sell the quality of museum giftshops. |
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Jul 29 2017, 11:06 PM Post #5482 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
Hey. It's horizontal, the hands are only mildly pronated, and the ear's in the right place. Be content. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Jul 30 2017, 05:08 AM Post #5483 |
![]() ![]()
|
Its face tho ... what did that poor thing see while it was being made ? |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Jul 30 2017, 06:20 AM Post #5484 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Eh, I'd still prefer it if museums didn't deserve praise because their toy dinos aren't as bad as they could be
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 30 2017, 10:52 AM Post #5485 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
It's not like there aren't companies mass producing high quality dinosaurs, Safari, CollectA, heck even Papo at least has a good production value to it. But no, instead we get Schleich or at best bootlegs of better companies. |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Sep 7 2017, 02:07 AM Post #5486 |
![]() ![]()
|
Not much of an annoyance with paleontology in general, but a nitpick with part of paleo community's reactions towards discoveries and analysis. > most integument from Tyrannosauridae pointing towards most of the integument consisting of modified feathers, not proto-fuzz covering the animal > "Ur just a Scaly" > "Y u hate fedders" > "But muh fedderd rex" > "But muh Yutyranus" > "Muh muh" Come on. It's just an animal, it having derived dinosaurian traits like modified feathers is not something to be enraged about. Edited by Similis, Sep 7 2017, 02:11 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Sep 7 2017, 01:24 PM Post #5487 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
There's the opposite where everyone was like "JURASSIC PARK WAS RITE GUISE! REJOICE!" |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Sep 7 2017, 02:11 PM Post #5488 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I still don't buy those impressions even being scales though, they look more like desiccated skin. And I get it, I'm not basing this on seeing them in person, but the irregularity of them doesn't resemble any scales known from other dinosaurs or modern animals and the authors don't address this. Even exposed skin on living birds tends to look closer to the impressions than scales do.![]() Hence I still maintain the most likely reconstruction being that these impressions are skin as opposed to a completely new pattern and "form" of scales that we've never seen on any other animal. I hate when people blindly follow the most recent paper on a topic without bothering to think for themselves. Not in reference to this discussion, just in general. |
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Sep 7 2017, 02:59 PM Post #5489 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
I saw a cast of the Wyrex skin impression at the Black Hills Institute. You're right, it really doesn't look like scales and DOES look a lot like the skin on a turkey's face, though the "scales" are smaller.
Edited by Acinonyx Jubatus, Sep 7 2017, 02:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Similis | Sep 7 2017, 03:19 PM Post #5490 |
![]() ![]()
|
Looks pretty much like hadrosaur skin fossils, no? Also, if not modified feathers but naked skin, then it's actually quite lulsy, but an even more interesting possibility for derived integument in Tyrannosauridae
|
![]() |
|
| 3 users reading this topic (3 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




















