wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Sep 07:29
collapse
No, much like how brontosaurus was later discovered to be a mix of bones from various individuals, “Distanceraptor” is actually a conflation of multiple Displacemosaurids.
Sorry to break these news to you but in 2015 they discovered that Brontosaurus actually existed, so the “it was a mix of other species bones” is wrong, as much as a fun fact it was 😟
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Sep 22:04
collapse
Thanks for the fascinating read! It seems like the specific taxonomy is still far from certain and needs validation, by the study authors’ own admission, but you’re absolutely correct that it wasn’t the bones of multiple species! I could swear there was another one of those from Germany that was a mishmash. Do you remember what that one was? I’m just a geochemist, not a palaeontologist. But anyway, I look forward to seeing validation studies by others of the 2015 findings! It would be great to see all of that hard work pay off! Do you know of any? I wasn’t able to find any from a cursory glance around the internet.
This may seem cheesy or pathetic, and I apologize for that, but I want to say: thank you for catching me off guard with your silly comment and giving me a badly-needed smile and laugh when I’m fucking miserable and in a lot of pain. It’s been a while. Seriously, I appreciate it. You’re a hoot :)
TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
on 13 Sep 14:08
nextcollapse
I mean… you can see the processes (bony protrusions on the vertebrae) are long and flat and only transverse (sticking out the sides, not up/down) so… it would be pretty obvious it was a flat tail? Sure maybe they might not get that it wasn’t fuzzy without any fossils if it, and maybe they make it slightly less round, but they’re scientists not idiots. Yeah some has come a long way and some older models sucked sure but it ain’t like we are vibe coding their appearance.
If you take out the word ‘completely’ you’ve got it.
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
on 13 Sep 14:55
nextcollapse
It’s only obvious because you already know what a beaver looks like.
Gullible@sh.itjust.works
on 13 Sep 15:12
nextcollapse
Pretty much. You can factually tell that a lot of something was going on with all of those delicious muscle hooks on such a small frame, but a flat paddle mightn’t be their first thought. Really depends on who sees it first, but they’d eventually get at least close. Just give it a few years of screaming. Yes, both external and internal.
TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
on 13 Sep 15:16
collapse
I mean, no?
You can see no vertical protrusions of the vertebrae so there’s going to be A: vertical movement as muscles can best attach to pull up/down. And B: a likely flat structural rail with how wide the horizontal protrusions are. C: nothing sharp or heavily weighted at the end so likely not a huge weaponised tail like a thagomizer. So… you’ve got a probably flat tail, than can slam down on stuff.
Now figuring out WHY it was like that would require being able to find fossils around rivers and being able to tell those rivers had dams or something cuz idk how they would figure out exactly how they use their tails but… yeah you can figure the general shape fine based on vertebrae anatomy which leads to (possible)muscle anatomy. Some bones don’t function the way they look and can throw stuff off. Someone else already mentioned stuff like air sacks in birds and such that would really throw off anatomy based on bone and assumed muscular structure from where bones could have attached muscles.
snooggums@piefed.world
on 13 Sep 14:08
nextcollapse
So one of the biggest leaps they have made in reconstruction over the last few decades is matching similar bone structure that supports soft tissue. It doesn't work for all soft tissue, but if the beavers tail bones have bumps or other features that hint at supporting extra soft tissue there is a chance.
All the stuff birds have, like inflatable neck sacks and feathers that move with muscles are examples of things we absolutely wouldn't get with fossils that are even better than a beaver tail.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
on 13 Sep 18:48
nextcollapse
The idea of non-avian dinosaurs with the diverse features and behaviors birds have is very fun to me, and I hope fictitious depictions of birdsaurs becomes as common as classic dinosaurs’s.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
on 14 Sep 11:51
collapse
Sure but also there are some fossils that DO have skin, and some even have preserved organs. And some have feathers, which is a pretty good indicator that there wasn’t some large feature we’re missing.
No doubt we are wrong on lots of counts, but I think we have good evidence for a lot of it as well.
It is thought now that dinosaurs had a sort of fluff. Like feathers but not evolved to fly with yet.
leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 14 Sep 05:14
collapse
Smaller dinosaurs might have had fluff, bigger ones probably didn’t, like most big mammals. Bigger body, more heat to dissipate, but less relative surface to do so; the square-cube law can be a bit of a bitch, for big (probably at least somewhat) endothermic critters.
Giraffes have hair, though, and woolly mammoths were a thing, so big fluffy dinosaurs might have been a thing, especially in colder climates.
Also, looking at bird behaviour, I wouldn’t be surprised if even mostly bald dinos had some colorful feathers on their arms, tail, or head for displaying…
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
on 16 Sep 13:44
collapse
pretty sure we know basically 100% for certain that some species of T.Rex relatives were fluffy, the ones living in the arctic specifically iirc.
It’s the single most detailed and complete soft tissue fossil ever discovered. It took the technician six years to extract and separate the fossil from the surrounding stone. The technician’s name is Mark Mitchell, and the species was named after him.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de
on 13 Sep 20:54
collapse
Your bones aren’t just swimming around in a sea of muscles. They are attached to the muscles and sinews. So those places where they are attached are formed in specific ways depending on what is attached.
Also, as you move throughout your life, those attachments can cause stress in places that build up, and your bones will show all of that. For instance, even though all humans have the same soft tissue connection points, we can tell by a skeleton whether a person had a life of hard labour vs relative luxury, whether they were an archer with stronger and more stressed arm muscles, etc.
If tail vertebrae, for instance, have spent their life supporting and moving a heavy amount of soft tissue, those connection points will look much different than a similar tail of skin and bone with far less weight to bear.
So now, we have a pretty good idea not only where soft tissues attached, but their relative size, strength, and use.
bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works
on 13 Sep 16:47
nextcollapse
One thing I wouldn’t mind AI to do, train a model with standardised data like this, and have it match the reconstruction. After that it can use common and less common reconstructions. After that try to map as much info from a dinosaur fossil to said standardised data structure and generate possible reconstruction for said dinosaur
Birds are reptiles. Commonly, we wouldn’t say so, but they’re in the same clade. The avians are closer related to the crocadilians than the crocs are to other reptiles like the squamates - lizards and snakes.
Hank Green went off about this recently. “Fish” just has no scientific meaning, and there are fish tetrapods.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but ultimately there is a problem in classifying “fish” in the modern scientific taxonomy system - it has no good phylum to fit in as its a term that’s a bit more broad than that, but not broad enough to make for a kingdom.
Sure, but isn’t the point that what we’d call ‘fish’ back when everything lived in the oceans, like pre-Devonian, the ancestors of all modern life?
We can’t out-evolve our clade, so all land animals are fish? And also we’re all amphibians, and everything directly leading to us? Insects, plants, and fungi are separate, but we’re technically fish?
Or am i misunderstanding that?
(e: if there are no ‘fish tetrapods’, where did tetrapods come from?)
Yeah, I’m not really arguing for or against the word fish technically fitting all land animals. I think that using it that way showcases the problem of trying to fit common terminology like “fish” into the scientific taxonomic system. The definition of fish has no use in that context.
That’s fair. Honestly, all of taxonomy is just lines we draw, and all of evolution is really a fuzzy gradient. We can’t even figure out where the line for ‘human’ begins, because that’s also a meaningless term, really.
So the fact that we’re fish is as meaningful (or meaningless) as the fact that we’re human.
(And thanks for the link! That’s a cool, uh, ‘fish’.)
Yeah, this is the distinction I’m trying to draw between “common” and “scientific” terminology. Scientific taxonomy is based on evolutionary history, rather than just superficial traits like “has gills, fins, and lives mostly in water.”
But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world
on 13 Sep 17:32
nextcollapse
Fossils many times are more than bones and we get actual imprints of their whole tail or other parts of them
It’s sneaking up on creationist levels of ‘science’, like where they argue recreations of Australopithecus are just ‘imagination’ and present their own version of Lucy as as a quadriped, completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence from her skeleton that she could not have walked that way (and also ignoring that we have hundreds of other specimens of her species).
It really seems that lots of people’s conception of these fields is based on very outdated concepts, either unaware or ignoring all the evidence and advancements of the past 50 years or so.
We do now know that dinosaurs were the forbearers of birds. Those that told us they were reptiles still continue to push that however. They were warm blooded and it is now thought they had some sort of pre feathers.
I believe the same thing applies to archeology, The Experts claim to have an answer to every question and impute things on the ancient cultures that they have no way of knowing.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 14 Sep 00:57
nextcollapse
The Experts claim to have an answer to every question
That’s not my experience at all. “The Experts” are extraordinarily cautious to make assertions even when they’re well supported. They talk about “models” and are happy to revise and update their positions when contrary evidence emerges.
At every period of human history experts have claimed to have all of the answers to every question. They’ve never been right about that but people assume now they are. Dinosaurs are a case in point, as egypt, peru, et al are.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 14 Sep 01:17
nextcollapse
This is straight from the Pseudo Scientist playbook, well established Graham Hancock shtick.
you have no idea about how scientific method works. It’s the furtherst thing from being dogmatic and claiming to know everything. When you look at modern science, you don’t look at a “that was like this” statement, it’s more of “that’s what we discovered so far, it’s weird, so we re-checked it with every method availeble to us, here’s all the data we have and how we checked it”.
I dare you to read at least one actual scientific article before you claim anything about modern science. It’s easy to badmouth it and fentasize about your own reality when all you read are nothing more than rewrites and interpretations of said articles, made by journalists that want to write front-pagers, not to represent the data correctly and substantionally.
Collatz_problem@hexbear.net
on 14 Sep 03:36
collapse
They were warm blooded
They were actually in a weird limbo between warm-blooded and cold-blooded, with many features pointing in different directions.
threaded - newest
All dinosaurs had beaver tails, got it!
All dinosaurs looked like beavers of varying sizes and lengths.
I don’t think dinosaurs were taking x-rays of beaver tails, my dude. Go read a book sometime.
Don’t velociraptors have xray vision though?
Only on weekends
That’s why they’re called velociraptors.
I thought they were called like this because of their love of bicycles.
Jaws was never their scene.
Nah, you’re thinking of the much more dangerous “acceleraptors”. Velociraptors were very different from how they are commonly portrayed.
So then distanceraptors are yet to be discoverd?
No, much like how brontosaurus was later discovered to be a mix of bones from various individuals, “Distanceraptor” is actually a conflation of multiple Displacemosaurids.
Sorry to break these news to you but in 2015 they discovered that Brontosaurus actually existed, so the “it was a mix of other species bones” is wrong, as much as a fun fact it was 😟
Thanks for the fascinating read! It seems like the specific taxonomy is still far from certain and needs validation, by the study authors’ own admission, but you’re absolutely correct that it wasn’t the bones of multiple species! I could swear there was another one of those from Germany that was a mishmash. Do you remember what that one was? I’m just a geochemist, not a palaeontologist. But anyway, I look forward to seeing validation studies by others of the 2015 findings! It would be great to see all of that hard work pay off! Do you know of any? I wasn’t able to find any from a cursory glance around the internet.
No, sorry, I just remembered the rebuttal of the fun fact, but I’m not into paleontology so I don’t know about the rest.
Idiot, why do you think We can see all their bones?
We need to give birds x-ray machines asap.
This may seem cheesy or pathetic, and I apologize for that, but I want to say: thank you for catching me off guard with your silly comment and giving me a badly-needed smile and laugh when I’m fucking miserable and in a lot of pain. It’s been a while. Seriously, I appreciate it. You’re a hoot :)
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/bcc6f758-0b77-4805-970a-96d54c115f04.jpeg">
I mean… you can see the processes (bony protrusions on the vertebrae) are long and flat and only transverse (sticking out the sides, not up/down) so… it would be pretty obvious it was a flat tail? Sure maybe they might not get that it wasn’t fuzzy without any fossils if it, and maybe they make it slightly less round, but they’re scientists not idiots. Yeah some has come a long way and some older models sucked sure but it ain’t like we are vibe coding their appearance.
In other words, their depiction would completely different.
If you take out the word ‘completely’ you’ve got it.
It’s only obvious because you already know what a beaver looks like.
Pretty much. You can factually tell that a lot of something was going on with all of those delicious muscle hooks on such a small frame, but a flat paddle mightn’t be their first thought. Really depends on who sees it first, but they’d eventually get at least close. Just give it a few years of screaming. Yes, both external and internal.
I mean, no?
You can see no vertical protrusions of the vertebrae so there’s going to be A: vertical movement as muscles can best attach to pull up/down. And B: a likely flat structural rail with how wide the horizontal protrusions are. C: nothing sharp or heavily weighted at the end so likely not a huge weaponised tail like a thagomizer. So… you’ve got a probably flat tail, than can slam down on stuff.
Now figuring out WHY it was like that would require being able to find fossils around rivers and being able to tell those rivers had dams or something cuz idk how they would figure out exactly how they use their tails but… yeah you can figure the general shape fine based on vertebrae anatomy which leads to (possible)muscle anatomy. Some bones don’t function the way they look and can throw stuff off. Someone else already mentioned stuff like air sacks in birds and such that would really throw off anatomy based on bone and assumed muscular structure from where bones could have attached muscles.
Vibe coded lion:
<img alt="" src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/10b9e034-29a8-4035-992b-fa19e05faf31.jpeg">
So one of the biggest leaps they have made in reconstruction over the last few decades is matching similar bone structure that supports soft tissue. It doesn't work for all soft tissue, but if the beavers tail bones have bumps or other features that hint at supporting extra soft tissue there is a chance.
All the stuff birds have, like inflatable neck sacks and feathers that move with muscles are examples of things we absolutely wouldn't get with fossils that are even better than a beaver tail.
Well, now I want to see an artist’s rendition of a T. rex doing this:
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8cc8ea5c-6cd5-4359-8ccd-eca502528269.jpeg">
The Prehistoric Planet documentary series does it with sauropods, it’s pretty sick.
i’m also a big fan of carnotaurus’ tiny piddly arms being brightly colored on the inside and them waving them around like mad
<img alt="" src="https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/2af41338-f6c2-4583-a157-9f8216be0eba.png">
The idea of non-avian dinosaurs with the diverse features and behaviors birds have is very fun to me, and I hope fictitious depictions of birdsaurs becomes as common as classic dinosaurs’s.
I want to see a T. Rex do this.
I always appreciate an enthusiastic and educational response to situations like this.
Also, in 40 million years, you can match the beaver fossils to the bones of their still living descendants and find similar features.
Now I want to see some pics of dinosaurs with beaver tails
What a marvellous time for paleobootyology.
Do beavers enjoy… Uppies??
Seems so.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/d89dc397-85b0-420c-b55d-d75cfb0539f2.jpeg">
Sure but also there are some fossils that DO have skin, and some even have preserved organs. And some have feathers, which is a pretty good indicator that there wasn’t some large feature we’re missing.
No doubt we are wrong on lots of counts, but I think we have good evidence for a lot of it as well.
No. This was created by someone who has no idea how any of this work. Soft tissues leave marks on bones.
Don’t ruin my dream of fluffy dinosaurs 😭
It is thought now that dinosaurs had a sort of fluff. Like feathers but not evolved to fly with yet.
Smaller dinosaurs might have had fluff, bigger ones probably didn’t, like most big mammals. Bigger body, more heat to dissipate, but less relative surface to do so; the square-cube law can be a bit of a bitch, for big (probably at least somewhat) endothermic critters.
Giraffes have hair, though, and woolly mammoths were a thing, so big fluffy dinosaurs might have been a thing, especially in colder climates.
Also, looking at bird behaviour, I wouldn’t be surprised if even mostly bald dinos had some colorful feathers on their arms, tail, or head for displaying…
pretty sure we know basically 100% for certain that some species of T.Rex relatives were fluffy, the ones living in the arctic specifically iirc.
Too late, i already imagined a flat-tailed T-rex.
Soft tissues can also become fossils under the right conditions. For an example, here is the fossil used for the B. markmitchelli holotype:
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/3c37325d-ef51-4b40-b10b-64d39218e143.webp">
It’s the single most detailed and complete soft tissue fossil ever discovered. It took the technician six years to extract and separate the fossil from the surrounding stone. The technician’s name is Mark Mitchell, and the species was named after him.
The articles on that are a fascinating read, thank you!
Could you explain how they leave marks?
Your bones aren’t just swimming around in a sea of muscles. They are attached to the muscles and sinews. So those places where they are attached are formed in specific ways depending on what is attached.
Also, as you move throughout your life, those attachments can cause stress in places that build up, and your bones will show all of that. For instance, even though all humans have the same soft tissue connection points, we can tell by a skeleton whether a person had a life of hard labour vs relative luxury, whether they were an archer with stronger and more stressed arm muscles, etc.
If tail vertebrae, for instance, have spent their life supporting and moving a heavy amount of soft tissue, those connection points will look much different than a similar tail of skin and bone with far less weight to bear.
So now, we have a pretty good idea not only where soft tissues attached, but their relative size, strength, and use.
One thing I wouldn’t mind AI to do, train a model with standardised data like this, and have it match the reconstruction. After that it can use common and less common reconstructions. After that try to map as much info from a dinosaur fossil to said standardised data structure and generate possible reconstruction for said dinosaur
Oh. I like this idea. This is the kind of thing AI would be good for.
They always use mammals for that kind of comparison. Show me a reptile with that kind of muscle/fat composition.
The phylogenetic definition of reptile includes birds, so… Penguins, I suppose?
Birds? You mean the last remaining dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs were not reptiles. They were warm blooded, and birds descended from them.
Birds are reptiles. Commonly, we wouldn’t say so, but they’re in the same clade. The avians are closer related to the crocadilians than the crocs are to other reptiles like the squamates - lizards and snakes.
Also people are fish. You can’t evolve out of your clade.
Hank Green went off about this recently. “Fish” just has no scientific meaning, and there are fish tetrapods.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but ultimately there is a problem in classifying “fish” in the modern scientific taxonomy system - it has no good phylum to fit in as its a term that’s a bit more broad than that, but not broad enough to make for a kingdom.
Sure, but isn’t the point that what we’d call ‘fish’ back when everything lived in the oceans, like pre-Devonian, the ancestors of all modern life?
We can’t out-evolve our clade, so all land animals are fish? And also we’re all amphibians, and everything directly leading to us? Insects, plants, and fungi are separate, but we’re technically fish?
Or am i misunderstanding that?
(e: if there are no ‘fish tetrapods’, where did tetrapods come from?)
Yeah, I’m not really arguing for or against the word fish technically fitting all land animals. I think that using it that way showcases the problem of trying to fit common terminology like “fish” into the scientific taxonomic system. The definition of fish has no use in that context.
Also, there are fish which are also arguably tetrapods en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii
That’s fair. Honestly, all of taxonomy is just lines we draw, and all of evolution is really a fuzzy gradient. We can’t even figure out where the line for ‘human’ begins, because that’s also a meaningless term, really.
So the fact that we’re fish is as meaningful (or meaningless) as the fact that we’re human.
(And thanks for the link! That’s a cool, uh, ‘fish’.)
Yeah, this is the distinction I’m trying to draw between “common” and “scientific” terminology. Scientific taxonomy is based on evolutionary history, rather than just superficial traits like “has gills, fins, and lives mostly in water.”
Fossils many times are more than bones and we get actual imprints of their whole tail or other parts of them
This is some real RFK level science here.
It’s sneaking up on creationist levels of ‘science’, like where they argue recreations of Australopithecus are just ‘imagination’ and present their own version of Lucy as as a quadriped, completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence from her skeleton that she could not have walked that way (and also ignoring that we have hundreds of other specimens of her species).
It really seems that lots of people’s conception of these fields is based on very outdated concepts, either unaware or ignoring all the evidence and advancements of the past 50 years or so.
We do now know that dinosaurs were the forbearers of birds. Those that told us they were reptiles still continue to push that however. They were warm blooded and it is now thought they had some sort of pre feathers.
I believe the same thing applies to archeology, The Experts claim to have an answer to every question and impute things on the ancient cultures that they have no way of knowing.
That’s not my experience at all. “The Experts” are extraordinarily cautious to make assertions even when they’re well supported. They talk about “models” and are happy to revise and update their positions when contrary evidence emerges.
Pseudo scientists have answers for everything.
At every period of human history experts have claimed to have all of the answers to every question. They’ve never been right about that but people assume now they are. Dinosaurs are a case in point, as egypt, peru, et al are.
This is straight from the Pseudo Scientist playbook, well established Graham Hancock shtick.
you have no idea about how scientific method works. It’s the furtherst thing from being dogmatic and claiming to know everything. When you look at modern science, you don’t look at a “that was like this” statement, it’s more of “that’s what we discovered so far, it’s weird, so we re-checked it with every method availeble to us, here’s all the data we have and how we checked it”.
I dare you to read at least one actual scientific article before you claim anything about modern science. It’s easy to badmouth it and fentasize about your own reality when all you read are nothing more than rewrites and interpretations of said articles, made by journalists that want to write front-pagers, not to represent the data correctly and substantionally.
They were actually in a weird limbo between warm-blooded and cold-blooded, with many features pointing in different directions.
That is one cute beaver pic on the left. PM more of your beavers.
I like to imagine T. rex arms were small because that’s how they communicated with their octopus rider.
They evolved to be small so they cold more easily fit into the actuator gauntlets that controlled the Gundam.
now think about apple fossils
Steve Jobs?
Also the bones need to be in the right position
<img alt="Magdeburg’s Unicorn" src="https://i0.wp.com/hyperallergic-newspack.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2022/08/Dv-c8dCX4AIZbbr.jpg">
They look at related and similarly adapted modern animals when trying to make visualizations of fossils, it’s not all just guessing.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0f29eafe-c0e9-43db-b0a9-448e0a5b2677.jpeg">
I’ve just watched the new movie and damn it’s so stupid compared to the original ones.
i saw someone draw a hippo based solely on the skeletal remains. they looked nothing alike.
Dinosaurs were probably chonky birbs.
Beaversaurs
This was a problem, which is nowadays accounted for.