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 (256,462 Views)
Furka
Member Avatar


so, reading this book about the Fallow Deer, and it says the first example about fallow deer in the fossil record is ... Deinonychus antirrhopus.

what.

i don't get if it's a joke about the name (Daino is the italian name of the fallow deer, and it looks similar) or if there's some similarity with the limb bones ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Iben
Member Avatar
There'll be no foot-walking! Just air-flying!

Dr. Hax
Nov 3 2013, 05:01 PM
entirely speculative
This is something I want to address here.

There's a fine line between indirect evidence and speculation, and those are two things you shouldn't confuse with each other.

Speculation can either be based on indirect evidence or on nothing at all. Speculation is often based on other modern day animals and is often used to get an idea of the behaviours of extinct animals. Like this, or this, or even this. Often there's no evidence at all, just the possibility that it might have happened.

However, indirect evidence is evidence that cannot be traced on the fossils of the actual specimen or that only show vague signs of it. Indirect evidence is often used to create an idea of what an animal looks like when certain parts of it aren't fossilized. No-one ever seems to have a problem with that. Palaeontologists use other animals from the same family to restore the missing pieces in fossils. Now, this is used on several other animals as well, ranging from mammals to birds, when the integument hasn't been fossilized. For instance, whether a Smilodon had fur or not has never been debated. This seems to be normal, even though this is all based on indirect evidence. When it comes to integument, indirect evidence is the best to use when we lack direct evidence. And it's a perfectly normal thing to do.

However, the fact that you act as if portraying dinosaurs like they were, most likely feathered in many cases, seems to be a way of "not showing respect" actually puzzles me. Because, it's more respectful to restore them as they most likely were than to cling on to your own image of "how a perfect dinosaur should look like". You want blunt answers and you're getting them, you yourself only interpret them as confusing and inconsistent. If you say that those fluffballs are only cute and show no respect, then you have zero respect towards big hunters such as condors, owls and eagles.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


Perhaps that's what annoys me most, is fluffy dinosaurs so often have these big beady eyes, instead of having cunning, eagle-like eyes,, they have eyes like this:
Posted Image
Ugh, no, just, no. Why would they even have beady eyes like that?
Edited by Dr. Hax, Nov 4 2013, 05:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Actually, the eye sockets of dromaeosaurids suggested they had eyes more like those of ducks or geese than like eagles. Their skulls lack the ridges that form the "angry eyes" that characterize birds of prey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


the majority of birds don't have eyes like eagle, and yet people don't say they are not nice-looking:

Spoiler: click to toggle
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


While I agree with you, Furka, I'm not sure that pic is the best example. xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flower
Member Avatar
eternal finessé

I agree with Dr.Hax. Dinosaurs are sharp hunters so they need sharp eyes to hunt. well, an amature in Paleontology, like me, shouldn't be saying this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


CI: why ? do you think there can be a bird more epic than that ?

Flower:
Spoiler: click to toggle


all those birds are predators (one way or another) and they don't have the eye of an eagle.
to be honest, people want eagle eyes on their dinos to make them look more powerful and kewler, but they were just animals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flower
Member Avatar
eternal finessé

*Is trying to divert Furka*

Beautiful pics Furka !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I think that bird looks epic, I'm just not sure Dr. Hax would agree. But I do agree with your main point, I think the main issue is the public being afraid to accept the growing realization that dinosaurs were just animals. We like to think of them as being powerful and alien super-beasts that could easily destroy any present-day mammal, but the fact is that they were just animals. In fact, in a match between an elephant and a T. rex, I think the elephant would still have a decent chance of winning. And in a match between a tiger and a Velociraptor, well I think you can guess this one. In all honesty, Velociraptor probably wasn't much stronger than a roadrunner. That's not to say I'm insulting dinosaurs, they're still incredible animals, but that's all they were: animals. Too many people think of them as gods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


Dr. Hax
Nov 4 2013, 05:10 AM
Perhaps that's what annoys me most, is fluffy dinosaurs so often have these big beady eyes, instead of having cunning, eagle-like eyes,, they have eyes like this:
Ugh, no, just, no. Why would they even have beady eyes like that?
Before you come up with complaints and claims based on lack of knowledge, think twice, Hax. Brow ridges that give the birds of prey those characteristic expressions are not present for the purposes of making them look badass and forcing teenage boys to worship their avian badassness. They serve a purpose. Many paravians didn't need them, so, obviously, they didn't have them, just as horses don't have rhinoceros-like horns.

On a side note, many ornithischians, in particular ornithopods, are known to have such ridges, making them look like they were constantly pissed. But in the end, only humans judge animals based on how stupid/clever their faces look. Animals simply don't give a damn.
Edited by Similis, Nov 4 2013, 09:12 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TyrantTR
Member Avatar


MrGorsh
Nov 4 2013, 09:11 AM
Dr. Hax
Nov 4 2013, 05:10 AM
Perhaps that's what annoys me most, is fluffy dinosaurs so often have these big beady eyes, instead of having cunning, eagle-like eyes,, they have eyes like this:
Ugh, no, just, no. Why would they even have beady eyes like that?
Before you come up with complaints and claims based on lack of knowledge, think twice, Hax. Brow ridges that give the birds of prey those characteristic expressions are not present for the purposes of making them look badass and forcing teenage boys to worship their avian badassness. They serve a purpose. Many paravians didn't need them, so, obviously, they didn't have them, just as horses don't have rhinoceros-like horns.
You actually may want to think twice about that. Here is a render done by the folks at witmer lab of an Allosaurus skull. You will notice a blue membrane (eyebrow) over the orbit. This inference is made because all extant sauropsids have one of some variety. And the brows most birds of prey have is made up mostly of this membrane, not bone. In some birds its much more pronounced but the principle remains the same. Keeping that in mind, looking at any Velociraptor skull it is not a stretch to imagine this membrane could form an "angry eyebrow" itself, like it does in both lizards and birds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


While I generally refrain from carving the skull to the bone, I also prefer not to exaggerate features such as this. This would prove to be possible to be troublesome when trying to reach an optimum. Velociraptor eyes poking out ready to fall out of the skull are extremely implausible, but increasing the amount of the eyebrow to the extremes for only the purpose of making those animals all possessing a certain look present in some, not all modern relatives, is too much for me. In said Veloc skull, the anchoring points to the membrane would be further up and not so much to the sides, thus forming a much less prominent brow line, while Dr. Hax clearly said that they should have eagle eyes that they lack the skull shape to support.

Then we have ornithischians with clearly pronounced brow bones that actually would have that eagle-like angry look, if not even more exaggerated. There are limitations set by the actual skull shape, and unless we assume that the tissue would build all around the brow and expand in a large shape over animal's eyes, the final face still fails to be that of an eagle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MarxRaptor
No Avatar


Dr. Hax
Nov 3 2013, 12:49 AM
The Fluffy Raptor
Nov 3 2013, 12:34 AM
Dr. Hax
Nov 2 2013, 08:59 PM
I think it looks implausible and stupid.
Quote:
 
scaly freak

This kind of attitude is why I'm defending scales on a regular basis
JP Fanboy is what's shouting in my head right now
I'm not a JP fanboy! I just don't like it when people have such a mean attitude towards the concept of scales on dinosaurs. So some dinosaurs were feathered, yes, but that doesn't mean ALL OF THEM were just because some of them were. Scaled dinosaurs don't deserve to be called "Scaly freaks" just the idea of a dinosaur that lacked feathers or quills MIGHT become outdated in the future! I normally agree that people who don't agree with scales don't act as stupid and immature as feather haters, but this is one case where I can point my finger and say this is a case of obvious hating on scales.
Many dinosaurs were feathered, but many were scaly also. Look at T.rex for example, all direct evidence points to it being scaly, yet many inist it must have been feathered. I also hate seeing Abelisauridae with feathers, or people arguing that they may have ha feathers, when all evidence points to the contrary.

A T.rex with feathers makes as much sense as a velociraptor without.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jules
Member Avatar
Mihi est imperare orbi universo

All clues point towards a feathered T. rex. First, its ancestry ;) Coelurosaurs were feathered, and feathers are not lost when the animal moves to a warmer climate, as they are beneficial as an isolant. Secondly, as I just said, there is no reason for it to lose it's feathers - unlike fur, feathers can not make an animal overheat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply