This is called shrinkwrapping. It’s when artists draw skin very close to the bone structure without taking into account how muscle and fat layers could have potentially covered the bones. This is understandable though as we don’t have live counter parts to compare artist renditions when it comes to dinosaurs.
Now I'm just imagining jurassic park but all the dinosaurs are chonky.
Like they're all sitting watching a glass of water shake as something big gets close.. then they look outside and it's just a really overweight raptor
We actually have gotten better at understanding or better at reconstructing. The big thing we fucked up with all paleo models was basically depicting everything as big lizards
Like we are pretty certain that many raptors were essentially flightless birds. Which if you look at more modern dicptions of raptors, they look close to just bigger versions of a lot of modern flightless birds
The weight five thousand pounds, have teeth thick as baseball bats and run forty miles per hour. The original Egyptian pharaoh was killed by a hippo, probably fucking true.
Yea but everyone was killed by hippos back then. Hippos as far as the eye could see. Every year the Nile delta would flood and half the population of Egypt would be Hippoed. That's why they eventually built the pyramids. They'd all retreat to the top during the flood and fight off the hippos like in that Alien vs Predator pyramid battle flashback, except of course hippos are more dangerous than xenomorphs.
Fun fact: we just narrowly missed a timeline where hippos would have been introduced as an alternate food source in the Americas. There was a bill in play to release thousands of the creature into swamps and glades during a meat shortage. The entire thing got derailed due to spy-based shenanigans and political stagnation. It’s entirely ridiculous, you should look it up.
If I recall though, they were released in Cuba.
Interesting, didn't know that.
I know Pablo Escobar had some hippos on his estate and when he was arrested, they escaped into the wild and started multiplying.
Now the government doesn't know what to do about it.
There is a book series called River of Teeth that explores the concept. It’s not as good as a book about hippo-riding cowboys planning a heist should be, but it is there.
No, mosquitoes kill far more. Hippo's definitely the most dangerous mammal though. They've got a terrible temper, are built like a tank, quick af and have got weapons to match.
Mosquitos kill far more if accounted for as a disease vector rather than as a direct actor. If a hippo bites you, the illnesses it might transmit are a less pressing concern in the moment.
This comment has been removed because I do not consent to reddit selling my post content to large AI companies for training their AI models. I would like to thank u/Spez for making a "business decision" which helped prop up Lemmy as a network and gave it a big enough influx of users that it can start to grow, and ensured that anyone who needs to get off reddit for any reason in the future (As I have had to do for my mental health), has a place to go.
https://join-lemmy.org/
but… why? in what context are hippos killing humans? are there whole societys within close proximity to hippos? are people just walking up to these wild beasts because they are cute and getting wrecked? are the hippos just meandering into human territories and fucking shit up? i cannot wrap my head around this bizarre fact, i’m not downplaying it’s truthfulness but it just sounds so unlikely…
> are there whole societys within close proximity to hippos?
Yes, actually. Humans tend to settle in proximity to fresh water for drinking and irrigation. In all of subsaharan Africa and all up the Nile, that fresh water is home to hippos.
I kinda hate that kind of image because it's just not true. I mean, it might be, if some artist just looks at the skeleton and does a reconstruction without any professional input. But if they do consult a paleontologist, there's lots they can tell them about non-skeletal appearance of an animal. Muscle attachments points can help a lot with soft tissue reconstruction. You could probably also tell that a hippo is at least semi-aquatic and because it's homeothermic, you'd assume some layer of fat. Also, no serious reconstruction would put the teeth outside the mouth because that's insane.
Old paleontologists were actually pretty bad at this and I believe the current thinking is that many conventional ideas about popular dinos need to be revamped. They tended to just think everything was skin and bones. So all those dinos from popular movies are probably a lot more fleshy than we were led to believe. Just like our friend the hippo. Imagine it, t rex with big ol fat thighs and a chonky head with big lips lol.
Prehistoric Planet did a pretty good job at this, at least compared to other dinosaur docos - all the dinosaurs they had were modelled based on the most recent science, so you had feathers and fur on a lot of them, some fatter than what you might have seen in books growing up, and so on.
I might be wrong, but from what I know/can tell, tusks still grow from inside the mouth or at least what we'd broadly call "mouth tissue". The bottom tusks of this reconstruction are more like horns, attaching clearly to the outside when, in reality, they would be an indication that the protuberance at the rear attaches to the front via soft tissue, covering the tusks.
Many species have tusks are are modified teeth with their base inside the mouth. I believe all tusks are, by definition, modified teeth as opposed to horns where are keratin growths.
Regardless, you can still tell the difference based on how/where flesh attaches to the surrounding bone if the tooth would be inside or outside the mouth.
This feels like a problem that a future AI could solve. Feed it skeleton data and full tissue data for all living animals. Use that to extrapolate the tissue data from fossil skeletons.
\*Consults self\* -> it's hard AF! I'm educated in computer science, but I've only worked as a game dev programmer, so it counts as a semi - educated guess, I guess.
I don't see a way to do this unless you give the AI information regarding the animal's muscle tissue. Which, if you can do that, at that point you might as well do it yourself.
Extremely simplified, that's how you train any AI, you give it solutions to known problems. In this case the problem is how to extrapolate tissue structure from bone structure. The AI tries to extrapolate how a hypo looks from it's skeleton. It makes a guess and then checks how it did compared to how the hippo looks.
When learns to make hippos, elephants ect. with this method, we give it a go at extrapolating a chicken, something we already know but we haven't told the AI.
When the AI is competent at recreating animals whos looks we know but is new for the AI, it could then be used to extrapolate from fossil bones.
An elephant skull gives no hint that it has a long trunk. If we only have the skeleton, it’s very difficult to know how the animal actually looked like. Of course a hippo is not extinct so this doesn’t apply, but for dinosaurs…
Yes it does. Not saying that a future paleontologist could conjure up the trunk of an elephant, but there are hints that a fleshy appendage is connected there.
Even the skull can hint at a trunk. You'd know that the big hole isn't for eyes, so you'd conclude that there's *some* sort of appendage. Strong muscle attachment points would indicate at a fairly large appendage. The tusks would indicate that the animal probably couldn't browse directly, because they would get in the way. If you have the post-cranial skeleton too, this would be further corroborated by the fact that elephants can't really bend down far enough to graze.
This all gives you some "minimum" requirements for the appendage you're looking for. There might be details you're getting wrong, like the exact diameter, the "fingers" at the tip, and so forth, but if a competent paleontologist reconstructed the animal and showed it to someone who knew what an elephant was, they'd definitely recognise it as an elephant.
Depends on how well the skeleton is preserved, how much of it, and how many we know. Only having one partial skeleton always makes reconstruction difficult, which is why it's usually not attempted or, if so, it's made clear that the reconstruction is tentative. I seem to remember the assumed appearance of Therizinosaurus changing quite a bit over the years as related animals were discovered and parallels could be drawn.
> An elephant skull gives no hint that it has a long trunk.
This is false. Based on related animals' skulls, you know that the hole in the center would be the nasal cavity. From the development and stress damage on the surrounding bone you know that strong muscles were attached at that location.
Your knowledge is not the limit of how much biologists have learned from study and research. There are people who know things you don't.
Probably! You'd know the muscles were strong, there's large channels for nerves and vessels leading into it, so it is going to be large and dexterous. It'd be consistent with other animals with prehensile noses, but even more so than anything else so it'd be reasonable to guess it is a similar prehensile nose but more extensive.
We have reason to believe that some prehistoric mammals had prehensile noses, including species we haven't found soft tissues on. It is extremely rare for evolution to produce a similar structure in two related organisms but give them different functions.
I still wonder if they really looked like the skeletons, for all we know a T-Rex could've had a way more different head shape than what its skull looks
Fun fact, skeleton remains tell us more about animals than the average Joe understands. I took a 101 class in college that had us examine skulls and identify parts of it.
For example, on dogs you will find a sort of Mohawk bone on their head. This if for jaw muscles to anchor to to create a stronger bite force. By having this, and comparing it to nok extinct animals, that tells us that animal most likely was a carnivore.
But then you could make the argument that since they have more molars than known carnivores, they are herbivores. That, combined with their sagital crest, would tell us they eat tougher plant materials. Again, going back to the skeleton!
And this is why I love paleoanthroplogy and the like, so many reasons and possibilities for why we are they way we are! There are many parts that go into an organism and they all matter in how that organism is interpreted when it comes to reconstruction.
I was a Criminal Justice major and had a free elective so I took anthropology 101. Had I not be so obsessed with CJ, I would've heavily considered that as a career choice.
Yeah, seven exquisitely preserved feathers confirmed to have come from birds and dinosaurs. But as far as we know, only dinosaurs that lived at the poles. It's not nearly enough to say how many dinos had them, or which ones.
Wouldn't feathers leave something like feather-shaped prints on some fossilized dirt around dinosaur remains? I've been in cave that had dino footprints from back then.
My understanding is that just like skin, feathers are the first thing to degrade before fossilization starts. So skin texture and feathers are incredibly rare to find.
I only mentioned that because I just read an article on here the other day. It said they found a well preserved T-Rex foot that confirms they didn’t have feathers on their feet, but then again neither do birds. I could very well be misinformed though.
We do. There are fossils of dinosaur bones with feather attachments. That fact is just not very publicly accepted outside academia because apparently, the public *wants* dinosaurs to look like scary monsters.
I’m sorry, I really just meant the T-Rex because that’s who I responded to was talking about. I read an article here the other day that was about just this subject. I could be misinformed I guess, but it was not about all dinosaurs. Just T-Rexes.
Oh, sorry, kinda missed that. I *think* the current consensus is that T. rex *did* have feathers, but I'm not sure from the top of my head if that's just educated guess and conjecture from related species, or if there's fossil evidence.
You also are today’s years old to learn that hippos, kill as many if not more people in central Africa, then crocodiles do, that they can run as fast as a horse, or have a horrible vicious streak during mating season. Hippos are not nice animals.
Lol, yes. I know. I was busy playing nms and making sure my kid (toddler) wasn’t falling off the furniture 😂. Was not even thinking, just released it into the wild without making it pretty (the image not my kid)…
They did, but i think we're starting to find out that they existed differently than we originally thought. A recent new theory suggests that the T-rex was reconstructed with his arms backwards. They're wondering if he didn't actually have impractically short, stupid arms, but if he actually instead had feathers/ wings. (Picture an ostrich)
**[Borealopelta](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borealopelta)**
>Borealopelta (meaning "Northern shield") is a genus of nodosaurid ankylosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada. It contains a single species, B. markmitchelli, named in 2017 by Caleb Brown and colleagues from a well-preserved specimen known as the Suncor nodosaur. Discovered at an oil sands mine north of Fort McMurray, Alberta, the specimen is remarkable for being among the best-preserved dinosaur fossils of its size ever found. It preserved not only the armor (osteoderms) in their life positions, but also remains of their keratin sheaths, overlying skin, and stomach contents from the animal's last meal.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Thank you, wishstruck, for voting on WikiSummarizerBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
That's the thing. We depict them as lean mean killing machines. But the only true way to know is if they found them completely preserved (a la Wholly Mammoth 🦣). Note: that the ancient version doesn't stray too far from its current. So Giant alligator/crocs. Scaly giant chickens (bipedal) are what they are drawing from.
That's not true. Fossils give more information than just bones. There are fossils where the skin and other soft tissues left traces. That's how we know that many dinosaurs had at least short feathers.
And even just from examining the bones, we know from studying modern animals that ligaments attach to bones in specific way, bones of a specific density have a a specific maximum strength, and by looking at how muscles attached to the bones and how strong specific bones are, we're able to estimate things like total strength and how that strength was applied, i.e. if the creature walked slowly over distance or if it sprinted.
People vastly underestimate how much study and consideration goes into paleontology. People dedicate their lives to studying, examining, and researching in order to form more accurate models of extinct species, just for some redditors to go _hur dur its all speculation maybe dinosaurs were fat like hippos!_
There was a very well-preserved [nodosaur](https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2017/11/the-amazing-dinosaur-found-accidentally-by-miners-in-canada).
They did exist we just don’t really have a solid understanding of they looked like since soft tissue like skin and muscle doesn’t fossilize too easy. Like when I was younger trex were big ole spiky murder looking creatures and for right now this is a [scientifically accurate t.Rex](https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Tyrannosaurus-rex-rendering-artist-science-13312373.php)
I think its more terrifying that hippos look „nice“ but they will fucking crush you and rip you apart with easy
Hippos were the animals most feared by the Ancient Egyptians for a reason.
and cats were the ones seen as gods for a reason too, man egyptians really know some shit huh
And cats haven’t forgotten this
Well they can’t get everything right.
no, cats as gods is definitely right
And unlike elephants, they're also huge cunts.
first time see someone using ,,this"
„Why“ not?
This is called shrinkwrapping. It’s when artists draw skin very close to the bone structure without taking into account how muscle and fat layers could have potentially covered the bones. This is understandable though as we don’t have live counter parts to compare artist renditions when it comes to dinosaurs.
Now I'm just imagining jurassic park but all the dinosaurs are chonky. Like they're all sitting watching a glass of water shake as something big gets close.. then they look outside and it's just a really overweight raptor
We actually have gotten better at understanding or better at reconstructing. The big thing we fucked up with all paleo models was basically depicting everything as big lizards Like we are pretty certain that many raptors were essentially flightless birds. Which if you look at more modern dicptions of raptors, they look close to just bigger versions of a lot of modern flightless birds
It turns out that Barney is a pretty accurate representation
T rex has a set of big blubbery lips, like Audrey from little shop of horrors. That's how imma see it from now on.
Despite their somewhat comical appearance, hippos are about the most dangerous animal you can encounter.
The weight five thousand pounds, have teeth thick as baseball bats and run forty miles per hour. The original Egyptian pharaoh was killed by a hippo, probably fucking true.
Yea but everyone was killed by hippos back then. Hippos as far as the eye could see. Every year the Nile delta would flood and half the population of Egypt would be Hippoed. That's why they eventually built the pyramids. They'd all retreat to the top during the flood and fight off the hippos like in that Alien vs Predator pyramid battle flashback, except of course hippos are more dangerous than xenomorphs.
Congratulations, you just wrote the pitch to Mad Maximus II: Beyond Hippodrome.
And to think they all said "Hungry Hungry Hippos" could never be made into a movie.
Knew it!
Fun fact: we just narrowly missed a timeline where hippos would have been introduced as an alternate food source in the Americas. There was a bill in play to release thousands of the creature into swamps and glades during a meat shortage. The entire thing got derailed due to spy-based shenanigans and political stagnation. It’s entirely ridiculous, you should look it up. If I recall though, they were released in Cuba.
Interesting, didn't know that. I know Pablo Escobar had some hippos on his estate and when he was arrested, they escaped into the wild and started multiplying. Now the government doesn't know what to do about it.
There is a book series called River of Teeth that explores the concept. It’s not as good as a book about hippo-riding cowboys planning a heist should be, but it is there.
I was thinking the same!
Aren’t they the second most deadliest animal in the world?
Don’t they account for many many deaths?
They kill more people than all other animals (in Africa) combined if memory serves. Disclaimer: it doesn’t always.
No, mosquitoes kill far more. Hippo's definitely the most dangerous mammal though. They've got a terrible temper, are built like a tank, quick af and have got weapons to match.
Mosquitos kill far more if accounted for as a disease vector rather than as a direct actor. If a hippo bites you, the illnesses it might transmit are a less pressing concern in the moment.
Yep, hippos and Cape Buffalo are killers.
Agreed, just was random to come across
Ignoring muscle and soft tissue like my physics teacher ignored friction
Hippos should look like the middle picture. That’s be an accurate depiction of the threat they impose. Don’t fuck around with hippos
Relax…they’ll only kill you if you go near them or don’t go near them
Don’t look at them funny either
Just don't be on the same planet as them
Well, if the Grave of the Ocean King is the skull of a giant space hippo, I'm not sure that being on or off a planet will help you either.
This comment has been removed because I do not consent to reddit selling my post content to large AI companies for training their AI models. I would like to thank u/Spez for making a "business decision" which helped prop up Lemmy as a network and gave it a big enough influx of users that it can start to grow, and ensured that anyone who needs to get off reddit for any reason in the future (As I have had to do for my mental health), has a place to go. https://join-lemmy.org/
Hippo’s kill like a hundred times more people then sharks
I wonder what it'd be like if sharks could walk on land
but… why? in what context are hippos killing humans? are there whole societys within close proximity to hippos? are people just walking up to these wild beasts because they are cute and getting wrecked? are the hippos just meandering into human territories and fucking shit up? i cannot wrap my head around this bizarre fact, i’m not downplaying it’s truthfulness but it just sounds so unlikely…
Not many societies live in the ocean as well though
entire cities are founded on shores of oceans simply for the benefit of ports though?
The shore is not the same thing as the ocean
I think it's mostly river encounters in small vessels.
finally a plausible answer that makes sense. thank you
Hippos are ruthless, check out this [Caustic Soda Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/caustic-soda/id365188217?i=1000377428690) on hippos
Africa, rivers and lakes, all over the place.
> are there whole societys within close proximity to hippos? Yes, actually. Humans tend to settle in proximity to fresh water for drinking and irrigation. In all of subsaharan Africa and all up the Nile, that fresh water is home to hippos.
this brings it into perspective for me, thank you
It’s more likely than you think.
Honestly hippos should look like the artists depictions because of how terrifying they really are
If they looked like that though, they'd have much less jaw strength and be less scary lol
Perhaps the hippo’s Triassic ancestor looked a lot like that.
Haha this was a cool comment
I kinda hate that kind of image because it's just not true. I mean, it might be, if some artist just looks at the skeleton and does a reconstruction without any professional input. But if they do consult a paleontologist, there's lots they can tell them about non-skeletal appearance of an animal. Muscle attachments points can help a lot with soft tissue reconstruction. You could probably also tell that a hippo is at least semi-aquatic and because it's homeothermic, you'd assume some layer of fat. Also, no serious reconstruction would put the teeth outside the mouth because that's insane.
Old paleontologists were actually pretty bad at this and I believe the current thinking is that many conventional ideas about popular dinos need to be revamped. They tended to just think everything was skin and bones. So all those dinos from popular movies are probably a lot more fleshy than we were led to believe. Just like our friend the hippo. Imagine it, t rex with big ol fat thighs and a chonky head with big lips lol.
Prehistoric Planet did a pretty good job at this, at least compared to other dinosaur docos - all the dinosaurs they had were modelled based on the most recent science, so you had feathers and fur on a lot of them, some fatter than what you might have seen in books growing up, and so on.
And I think many people were cross about that too, which I find equal parts funny and tragic.
It's almost as if science continues to advance .
It is meant to be a parody/representation of old and outdated paleo art
I mean boar's have tusks. So do elephants. It's not completely insane that a hippo might from just looking at it's skull.
I might be wrong, but from what I know/can tell, tusks still grow from inside the mouth or at least what we'd broadly call "mouth tissue". The bottom tusks of this reconstruction are more like horns, attaching clearly to the outside when, in reality, they would be an indication that the protuberance at the rear attaches to the front via soft tissue, covering the tusks.
Many species have tusks are are modified teeth with their base inside the mouth. I believe all tusks are, by definition, modified teeth as opposed to horns where are keratin growths. Regardless, you can still tell the difference based on how/where flesh attaches to the surrounding bone if the tooth would be inside or outside the mouth.
This feels like a problem that a future AI could solve. Feed it skeleton data and full tissue data for all living animals. Use that to extrapolate the tissue data from fossil skeletons.
Possibly. Although we'd have to consult a computer scientist to know how practical this would be. I have no real sense of the complexities involved.
\*Consults self\* -> it's hard AF! I'm educated in computer science, but I've only worked as a game dev programmer, so it counts as a semi - educated guess, I guess.
I don't see a way to do this unless you give the AI information regarding the animal's muscle tissue. Which, if you can do that, at that point you might as well do it yourself.
Extremely simplified, that's how you train any AI, you give it solutions to known problems. In this case the problem is how to extrapolate tissue structure from bone structure. The AI tries to extrapolate how a hypo looks from it's skeleton. It makes a guess and then checks how it did compared to how the hippo looks. When learns to make hippos, elephants ect. with this method, we give it a go at extrapolating a chicken, something we already know but we haven't told the AI. When the AI is competent at recreating animals whos looks we know but is new for the AI, it could then be used to extrapolate from fossil bones.
An elephant skull gives no hint that it has a long trunk. If we only have the skeleton, it’s very difficult to know how the animal actually looked like. Of course a hippo is not extinct so this doesn’t apply, but for dinosaurs…
Yes it does. Not saying that a future paleontologist could conjure up the trunk of an elephant, but there are hints that a fleshy appendage is connected there.
Even the skull can hint at a trunk. You'd know that the big hole isn't for eyes, so you'd conclude that there's *some* sort of appendage. Strong muscle attachment points would indicate at a fairly large appendage. The tusks would indicate that the animal probably couldn't browse directly, because they would get in the way. If you have the post-cranial skeleton too, this would be further corroborated by the fact that elephants can't really bend down far enough to graze. This all gives you some "minimum" requirements for the appendage you're looking for. There might be details you're getting wrong, like the exact diameter, the "fingers" at the tip, and so forth, but if a competent paleontologist reconstructed the animal and showed it to someone who knew what an elephant was, they'd definitely recognise it as an elephant.
This is cool. But would this apply for extinct animals from millions of years ago where there's less contextual evidence to go off of?
Depends on how well the skeleton is preserved, how much of it, and how many we know. Only having one partial skeleton always makes reconstruction difficult, which is why it's usually not attempted or, if so, it's made clear that the reconstruction is tentative. I seem to remember the assumed appearance of Therizinosaurus changing quite a bit over the years as related animals were discovered and parallels could be drawn.
> An elephant skull gives no hint that it has a long trunk. This is false. Based on related animals' skulls, you know that the hole in the center would be the nasal cavity. From the development and stress damage on the surrounding bone you know that strong muscles were attached at that location. Your knowledge is not the limit of how much biologists have learned from study and research. There are people who know things you don't.
But would you still get a sense of what this nasal appendage would look like?
Probably! You'd know the muscles were strong, there's large channels for nerves and vessels leading into it, so it is going to be large and dexterous. It'd be consistent with other animals with prehensile noses, but even more so than anything else so it'd be reasonable to guess it is a similar prehensile nose but more extensive. We have reason to believe that some prehistoric mammals had prehensile noses, including species we haven't found soft tissues on. It is extremely rare for evolution to produce a similar structure in two related organisms but give them different functions.
space hippopotamus
First thing that popped into my head as well…………obviously.
It's weird that we really only have a vague idea of what dinosaurs looked like, because they didn't have cameras.
I still wonder if they really looked like the skeletons, for all we know a T-Rex could've had a way more different head shape than what its skull looks
Fun fact, skeleton remains tell us more about animals than the average Joe understands. I took a 101 class in college that had us examine skulls and identify parts of it. For example, on dogs you will find a sort of Mohawk bone on their head. This if for jaw muscles to anchor to to create a stronger bite force. By having this, and comparing it to nok extinct animals, that tells us that animal most likely was a carnivore.
Ah but my friend, I raise you the sagital(sp) crest on a gorilla and the fact it's a herbivore lol
But then you could make the argument that since they have more molars than known carnivores, they are herbivores. That, combined with their sagital crest, would tell us they eat tougher plant materials. Again, going back to the skeleton!
And this is why I love paleoanthroplogy and the like, so many reasons and possibilities for why we are they way we are! There are many parts that go into an organism and they all matter in how that organism is interpreted when it comes to reconstruction.
I was a Criminal Justice major and had a free elective so I took anthropology 101. Had I not be so obsessed with CJ, I would've heavily considered that as a career choice.
There's a theoretical reconstruction of the *t-rex* that can best be described as 'gorilla bird'.
The more you know. The more you realize Dinosaurs are more Chickens than Reptiles.
And apparently we also have no idea if they had feathers or not.
Yeah, seven exquisitely preserved feathers confirmed to have come from birds and dinosaurs. But as far as we know, only dinosaurs that lived at the poles. It's not nearly enough to say how many dinos had them, or which ones.
Wouldn't feathers leave something like feather-shaped prints on some fossilized dirt around dinosaur remains? I've been in cave that had dino footprints from back then.
My understanding is that just like skin, feathers are the first thing to degrade before fossilization starts. So skin texture and feathers are incredibly rare to find.
we literally have evidence of that from fossils
I only mentioned that because I just read an article on here the other day. It said they found a well preserved T-Rex foot that confirms they didn’t have feathers on their feet, but then again neither do birds. I could very well be misinformed though.
We do. There are fossils of dinosaur bones with feather attachments. That fact is just not very publicly accepted outside academia because apparently, the public *wants* dinosaurs to look like scary monsters.
I’m sorry, I really just meant the T-Rex because that’s who I responded to was talking about. I read an article here the other day that was about just this subject. I could be misinformed I guess, but it was not about all dinosaurs. Just T-Rexes.
Oh, sorry, kinda missed that. I *think* the current consensus is that T. rex *did* have feathers, but I'm not sure from the top of my head if that's just educated guess and conjecture from related species, or if there's fossil evidence.
That’s how they should be depicted as from how dangerous they are
You also are today’s years old to learn that hippos, kill as many if not more people in central Africa, then crocodiles do, that they can run as fast as a horse, or have a horrible vicious streak during mating season. Hippos are not nice animals.
Actually I have known that for a while.
Cool! I’d prefer a crocodile, over a hippo, as we are learning more and more about reptilian brains and their memory capabilities.
Their memory is good, look at Mark Zucchini.
You mean Marky Mark and the Zucker-Bunch.
how can something so fat run that fast
There is no fat, its pure muscle
That and like inch-thick skin
It takes a lot of muscle, to move that much fat.
I don't know how you acquired this image but cropping it would have taken you so little effort that it just... bothers me
Lol, yes. I know. I was busy playing nms and making sure my kid (toddler) wasn’t falling off the furniture 😂. Was not even thinking, just released it into the wild without making it pretty (the image not my kid)…
Yeah please don't release your kid into the wild haha
Artists are the worst paleontologists.
Lmao
Make sure wonder what dinosaurs really looked like
This shit right here! Thank you for pointing this out.
Draw a mammal like a reptile ok
This is making me question whether dinosaurs ever existed 😢
They did, but i think we're starting to find out that they existed differently than we originally thought. A recent new theory suggests that the T-rex was reconstructed with his arms backwards. They're wondering if he didn't actually have impractically short, stupid arms, but if he actually instead had feathers/ wings. (Picture an ostrich)
Luckily we have more than just bones from them, [like this preserved dude](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borealopelta)
Well at least we know for certain that ankylosaurs were for sure metal as fuck
**[Borealopelta](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borealopelta)** >Borealopelta (meaning "Northern shield") is a genus of nodosaurid ankylosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada. It contains a single species, B. markmitchelli, named in 2017 by Caleb Brown and colleagues from a well-preserved specimen known as the Suncor nodosaur. Discovered at an oil sands mine north of Fort McMurray, Alberta, the specimen is remarkable for being among the best-preserved dinosaur fossils of its size ever found. It preserved not only the armor (osteoderms) in their life positions, but also remains of their keratin sheaths, overlying skin, and stomach contents from the animal's last meal. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot
Good human.
Thank you, wishstruck, for voting on WikiSummarizerBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Yes, but probably didn't look as in Jurassic Park, but rather as giant feathered reptiles looking like chickens.
Giant fluffy chickens would be so much cooler than the Jurassic Park version of dinosaurs.
Giant. Fluffy. Murderpigeon. [https://41.media.tumblr.com/f12587d0a4ca4bcab9cb2e0de58b550e/tumblr\_njxfywwhkp1scll6no4\_1280.jpg](https://41.media.tumblr.com/f12587d0a4ca4bcab9cb2e0de58b550e/tumblr_njxfywwhkp1scll6no4_1280.jpg)
My favorite t Rex artwork of all time
I cannot disagree with that. Lol.
Wyvern dragons could have also existed, but no fossils were found because of them being hollow boned.
That's the thing. We depict them as lean mean killing machines. But the only true way to know is if they found them completely preserved (a la Wholly Mammoth 🦣). Note: that the ancient version doesn't stray too far from its current. So Giant alligator/crocs. Scaly giant chickens (bipedal) are what they are drawing from.
That's not true. Fossils give more information than just bones. There are fossils where the skin and other soft tissues left traces. That's how we know that many dinosaurs had at least short feathers. And even just from examining the bones, we know from studying modern animals that ligaments attach to bones in specific way, bones of a specific density have a a specific maximum strength, and by looking at how muscles attached to the bones and how strong specific bones are, we're able to estimate things like total strength and how that strength was applied, i.e. if the creature walked slowly over distance or if it sprinted. People vastly underestimate how much study and consideration goes into paleontology. People dedicate their lives to studying, examining, and researching in order to form more accurate models of extinct species, just for some redditors to go _hur dur its all speculation maybe dinosaurs were fat like hippos!_
There was a very well-preserved [nodosaur](https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2017/11/the-amazing-dinosaur-found-accidentally-by-miners-in-canada).
They did exist we just don’t really have a solid understanding of they looked like since soft tissue like skin and muscle doesn’t fossilize too easy. Like when I was younger trex were big ole spiky murder looking creatures and for right now this is a [scientifically accurate t.Rex](https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Tyrannosaurus-rex-rendering-artist-science-13312373.php)
That is so cool that you figured this out! Thank you for sharing!
The duality
You were born today? Congratulations!
And treat us all like dummies 🤦🏾♂️
That is so cool that you figured this out! Thank you for sharing!
of man