Dinosaurs

Why do most comics still get Dinosaurs wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/12/rare-as-winning-the-lottery-new-dinosaur-fossil-so-well-preserved-it-looks-like-a-statue/?utm_term=.5565b1474232
youtube.com/watch?v=SuDqNLgVHv8
arvalis.deviantart.com/art/Saurian-T-rex-Infographic-556213086
nationalgeographic.com.au/history/t-rex-loved-a-snout-rub.aspx
thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/sensitive-snout-made-t-rex-a-gentle-lover-9mfckfpn8
theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/30/tyrannosaurus-rex-was-a-sensitive-lover-new-dinosaur-discovery-suggests
youtube.com/watch?v=uM5JN__15-g
theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/03/most-dinosaurs-had-scales-not-feathers-fossil-analysis-concludes
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Blame Jurassic park.
And the fact that scales are cooler than feathers. Hotter too, if you're a scalie.

>And the fact that scales are cooler than feathers
Debatable

this

Still waiting on a scientifically accurate lust penis comic.

Because scientist don't know how they really looked either.

Anyone got a good comic with accurate (to our current knowledge) dinosaurs?

we still don't really know how dinosaurs looked like
evidence heavily suggests some sort of feathers but covering them head to toe with them is just stupid

PLUS cretaceous era dinosaurs are the only ones who could have possibly had feathers

No, but we know feathers had to be there.

>All modern day dinosaurs (birds) have feathers.
>Feather-like structures have been found on fossils of common ancestors of dinosaurs and pterosaurs.
>Fossils of full feathers have been found on multiple distanly related theropods.

It's the reason we assume the common ancestor of monkeys and apes had tails since most other mammals have them, it wouldn't make sense if they didn't.

>Why do most comics still get Dinosaurs wrong?

Older portrayals of dinosaurs are the ones people are familiar with in pop culture.

For the longest time people thought the T-Rex stood up-right, and even after finding out this was not the case some forms of media still went with it.

No matter how many fossils we'll dig up, I don't think we'll ever get them right. These animals have been dead for a long time, and a lot of information about what they were like in life will remain up to guesswork. The sense of mystery is part of what fascinates me about them, though.

because it's a comicbook? and fantasy means it doesn't have to be 100% accurate.

Except for the nodosaur. They found a statue-like fossil instead of bones. So that'd like two out of 1000+ so far.

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/12/rare-as-winning-the-lottery-new-dinosaur-fossil-so-well-preserved-it-looks-like-a-statue/?utm_term=.5565b1474232

>and a lot of information about what they were like in life will remain up to guesswork.

youtube.com/watch?v=SuDqNLgVHv8

Feathers are gay

There is a lot about dinosaurs' appearance and lifestyle that can't be known. It's fairly rare to find fossils that preserve the flesh of dinosaurs; what their skin looked like, and whether they had any sort of fleshy appendages or filaments. Some scientists have figured out how to find out the color of fossilized feathers, but most of the time the color of dinosaurs is something we have to simply guess. Brown earthy hues like crocodiles, or colourful patterns like birds? Also, we can't see from bones if dinosaurs had some kind of warning calls or songs, specific poses that they used for threatening their rivals, dances they did while attracting mates, hunting habits they were adapted to, and so on. And sometimes we make the wrong conclusions based on fossils, like for example the assumption that Oviraptors were egg thieves.

Look into "All Yesterdays" and "All Your Yesterdays". Those books can help you understand how limited knowledge we have, and how much we have to guess.

...

>There is a lot about dinosaurs' appearance and lifestyle that can't be known.
far less than you would think. New technology is opening up ways to study dinosaurs that no one even thought of before. Like you mentioned, the colour of dino feathers can be looked at now. And using CRISPR to study certain dinosaur traits has been something going on for a while now. The Chickensaurus is a well known avenue for studying dinosaur traits.

It's very hard to know what is 'impossible' to be known.

yeah but they're FASHIONABLY gay

kinda like drinking cum but without swallowing the little babies in a martini glass

...

Does pic related have feathers? I think it's a mix.

Which dinosaur is sexiest?

I'm more pissed that everyone has a boner for T-Rexs and Velociraptors, every time a dino shows up 9 times out of 10 is one of those

tfw your favourite is ankylosaurus

ITT butthurt birblovers upset by sexy scaled 'saurs.

Teasing aside, it might be easier to draw the featherless, Jurassic park inspired business that most of the world is familiar with. Who knows?

>ankylosaurus
You sir are a Patrician

...

Pretty much all dinosaur media has always been inaccurate by the science of the time because writers are not paleontologists.
The only exception is when they are.

...

hey, I own that book. Haven't read it since I was in elementary school though. I remember liking it though.

...

...

>PLUS cretaceous era dinosaurs are the only ones who could have possibly had feathers
>birds started to become their own group during jurassic
>crocodiles and birds both have genes required to produce feathers and the evolutionary lines that led to them separated somewhere during triassic
>pterosaurs had fuzz that probably was related to feathers and the lines between them and birds also separated back during triassic
>it is not like they've found pre-cretaceous dinosaurs with feathers like kulindadromeus, sciurumimus, or yi qi

Spinosaurus master race

fisheating sail duck

...

Spotted the tiny arms pleb

if they were that cheap it would just look like fur

Is there any evidence to suggest a Tyrannosaur had feathers?

Figure it was mainly dromaeosaurs and smaller bipeds.

It's confirmed that it's Chinese grandpa had feathers
But they did find t-rex skin so even if it had feathers it was only on part of it's body

No direct evidence, but many of it's close relatives had feathers. So it could go either way.

Ancestors had feathers so young t-rexes probably had feathers for insulation. Adults wouldn't need them for insulation because they are so big, but they may still have had them for display.

A couple of feathers is fine. Drowning the fucking things in feathers is just part of the academic conspiracy to de-fang the entire concept of dinosaurs altogether. It's the same as these hit pieces on dinos that these hack frauds put out, like the T-Rex being a nuzzler. They're just trying to soften the public up so that no one objects when they try to open up their own Jurassic Park.

Nodosaurs were lizard-hipped, so they wouldn't have feathers.

>t-rex being a Nuzzler
Nani

>yfw you find out birds are just neotenic theropods
>and mammals are neotenic therapsids
>and humans are neotenic apes
>and all vertebrates are neotenic tunicates

Image exceeds filesize limit so I can't post it. Go here:
arvalis.deviantart.com/art/Saurian-T-rex-Infographic-556213086
That guy discusses the topic and shares skin impressions.

>scalies

...

nationalgeographic.com.au/history/t-rex-loved-a-snout-rub.aspx

thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/sensitive-snout-made-t-rex-a-gentle-lover-9mfckfpn8

theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/30/tyrannosaurus-rex-was-a-sensitive-lover-new-dinosaur-discovery-suggests

Indirectly: Most likely! Ancestors/relatives all have it.

Directly: the few patches of skin we do have are bare (or scaly), but they would be spots that are bare (or scaly) in many modern ground birds too.

So, it can't be ruled out with what we do have directly, and indirectly it's screaming "Hell Yeah!"

feathers aren't just for insulation. Emu feathers also keep them cool in Australia's deserts for instance.

>Drowning the fucking things in feathers is just part of the academic conspiracy to de-fang the entire concept of dinosaurs altogether.

They're animals, not a concept.

Just because you want them to be movie monsters doesn't mean they were.

...

Honestly the idea of a fearsome blood hungry beast being all cuddly and loving with it's mates is kinda funny

>academic conspiracy

How? They don't even have blood flow or conduct away heat. They aren't like elephant ears that pump warm blood through to radiate heat away.

They can CONTROL their body temperature by controlling their feathers, like fluffing them or whatever to let the air in to cool themselves, but not to radiate more heat away then they would be able to if they had no feathers at all. More likely than not they have those feathers for cold Australian nights and then simply try to cope with the excess insulation during the day by opening them up to breezes when hot.

Well, they are animals. Even wolves, bears, and tigers need someone to love.

Nah my favorite dinosaur is therizinosaurus

...

Not saying you can't like other dinos
Just saying that spino is god tier because swimming Dinos are cool as fuck

>Is there any evidence to suggest a Tyrannosaur had feathers?
Yes, feathers existed in the dinosaur genome as early as the triassic, many closely related species to T.rex that were also contemporary to it had thick feather covering.
We can't be 100% possitive until full skin impressions are found but t.rex fossils are already difficult to come across, however it's a safe bet.
>inb4 someone brings up carnotaurus for no fucking reason

Im raising an army of these in ARK right now

didnt realize how kick ass they are when they first came out.

They look so weird though

Yeah and how can we be from monkeys if there are still monkeys!?

>carnotaurus
Why?it was featherless?

You are aware that lions and other big cats and bears as well all show affection to their family members as well right?
Dinosaurs are animals not monsters from a childrens story

Because they're a secondary cooling system (which is why Ostridges don't have big fluffy feathers, as they don't have to deal with the cold that Emus do).

Keep in mind, if they don't have feathers, then they be as naked as Ostridge legs (or but).

And the idea of a baby being feathered while the adult is scaly is ludicrously stupid.

When they first found it's arms they thought it belonged to a carnivorous turtle
Pretty funny if you ask me

>Adults wouldn't need them for insulation because they are so big,
FUCK RIGHT OFF WITH THIS TIRED ARGUMENT
Feathers are not only for insulation they can also be for radiating heat away from the core.
I guess ostriches and emus and cassowaries don't have feathers either right?
I guess the Moa didn't have feathers either right?
fucking armchair biologists

Loved this.

>How? They don't even have blood flow or conduct away heat.
Do radiators have blood?
Do heat sinks have blood?
They are conductive extensions of their body that is how they radiate heat

surface area. That's how you cool

My point is that the argument doesn't work for T-rexes. Those feathers don't cool anything. They simply help control body temperature. They would be cooler without any feathers.

Adult t-rexes wouldn't have had any problem with keeping themselves warm at night so they wouldn't need feathers for insulation nor to control their body temperature. If anything they would want to have no feathers such that they can deal with excess body heat during the day.

MAYBE they had feathers for display and tried to negate the insulation like you say modern birds do when not.

Presumably at least that is the current theory based on discovered skin impressions.
However it's also not something that can be compared to any other theropod since its was a bit of a freak, it lived in an area of the world that was completely isolated when it was alive and evolved very strangely due to that, for example it's arms were completely vestigial and just hung limply at the side of it's body, it had four fingers it's hips were designed differently pretty much making it impossible to quickly change direction
it's neck was different and it was covered in spikes.
Carnotaurus was weird.

Or maybe that's not how evolution works and they still have feathers because their much smaller ancestors had feathers, and while theirs might end up evolving to be patchier or shorter due to their size, they would still have them.

It wouldn't make sense for their smaller dinosaur cousins to have feathers but for them to have no trace of them.

Because dinosaurs with feathers look retarded.

Your computer radiator doesn't do anything if you don't have a way to conduct heat into it. Just tossing it into your computer case rather than attaching it to your CPU with thermal paste doesn't do anything. Similarly feathers don't do anything without blood flow. They can control their body temperature, but they can't cool themselves any more than they could if they had no feathers at all.

They might help with sunlight though.

And you think feather shafts are as thermally conductive as metal?

Come on, user. At least think your posts through before posting.

>And you think feather shafts are as thermally conductive as metal?
They don't have to be.
wood isn't as conductive as metal but it will still absorb heat

We are talking about millions of years. That's more than enough time for a few t-rexes to die of heat stroke and leave the ones with fewer or no feathers. Look at humans.

If they kept them then it would be for a purpose, like display.

Wood is a terrible thermal conductor.

I saw this the other day. Really fucking cool discovery.
Do we have any other finds as well preserved as this one?

And yet Ostridges still have feathers. Millions of years in a desert and they still have quite a lot of feathers.

And then there's Rhea, who have even more feathers and live in similar thermal environments to T. Rex

AND WHALES HAVE MUSTACHES WHEN THEY ARE BORN! They have been water born for 50 million years, and they STILL have hair!

So 'a few million years' is NOT enough. Especially when we have Yutyrannus in its phylogeny.

Except that's not how any of this happened. Last I checked the leading theory for us being balder than other apes is due to diseases spread by lice, causing the ones with the least hair to survive.

Meanwhile there are plenty of animals, large and small, in hot climates with plenty of hair. It's usually short, sometimes thinned out, and then they find other means of losing the heat. If whether creatures kept their hair was a matter of size the giraffes would be bald.

It's possible and that has happened with a few species that are alive now, but it's not a sure thing.

Did T. Rex have feathers?
youtube.com/watch?v=uM5JN__15-g

Yes. Most likely, but not totally.

...

convection isn't the only heat transfer mechanism. Conduction also works.

If that were the case then lots of mammals would be hairless. When a disease hits (spread by lice or whatever) then those susceptible die and those who are immune or resistant survive. It's not typically a slow thing that one evolves for.

Humans lost their body hair because of our hunting method. Instead of laying in the shade of trees all day like our ancestors we evolved to hunt on the savanna using persistence hunting.

It's all rooted in the composition of our sweat. Animals with a lot of body hair need sweat a lot of oil to wick away the moisture they also sweat. However if they sweat too much the oils build up and produce a lather that insulates and the animal dies of heat exhaustion. Humans however don't need that oil so we sweat mostly water. This allows us to do strenuous activity even on very hot days in Africa so long as we stay well hydrated. It allowed our ancestors to literally run animals down during hot days until the prey died of the heat.

Look up persistence hunting. A tribe in Africa practiced it until relatively recently.

That's why I brought up computer heat sinks. Conduction doesn't work unless you have a very good heat transfer medium. Technically winter jackets conduct heat, that doesn't mean you won't die of a heat stroke if you wear it on a hot day.

I agree, it's just another conspiracy by the MAINSTREAM MEDIA

>what are cats

I dunno, but I saw a thing that said that Emu feathers are better at keeping them cool than Red Kangaroo fur.

That's a very good question . . .

Most dinosaurs had scales, not feathers, fossil analysis concludes
theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/03/most-dinosaurs-had-scales-not-feathers-fossil-analysis-concludes

Maybe that has something to do with feathers being able to stand on any better than fur?

>be carnotaurus
>be ugly and weird
>the other dinos ignore me
>t-rex is the face of dinosaurs
>spino is the river king of Africa
>they both were featured in a shit ton of games and movies
>the biggest part I ever got was in a shitty Disney movie nobody remembers
>I can't feel my arms
>isolated from everyone
why did carno get cucked so hard

The problem with that study is that the result hinges upon whether or not pterosaur pycnofibers are homologous to dinosaur protofeathers. If it is assumed they are, then the result switches the other way, that integumentary filaments are ancestral for Ornithodira.

>the disney movie didn't even portray them right
>just made them into a scary T-rex
>they're actually more like a cheetah and could whip their heads to the side and open their mandible almost like a fish to blindside their prey

> tyrannosaurus budgie
every fucking time

It's bullshit but I want to believe it

Triceratops is best

>Tyrannosaur's preferred method of hunting was rolling over their prey

>they could make a Scene where the carno starts screaming in the protags face until it's jaw fully opens and the scream becomes louder and distorted for nightmare fuel
>instead they didn't
>and instead went with generic "carnivores are evil" thing