My personal paleo nerd progression;
Child me: woah dinosaurs, love em’. Love jp raptors yeah.
Preteen me: why doesn’t it have feathers, everything had feathers
Me now: bro WHY DOES IT HAVE FEATHERS I-
NO-
NO-
MY GOOD SIR CEASE-
BRO PLEASE NOT EVERY DINOSAUR HAD FEA-
*somebody makes an image of a Carnotaurus covered in feathers*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-
My personal paleo nerd progression;
Child me: woah dinosaurs, love em’. Love jp raptors yeah.
Preteen me: why doesn’t it have feathers, everything had feathers
Me now: bro WHY DOES IT HAVE FEATHERS I-
NO-
NO-
MY GOOD SIR CEASE-
BRO PLEASE NOT EVERY DINOSAUR HAD FEA-
*somebody makes an image of a Carnotaurus covered in feathers*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-
I once saw some really cool speculative art of a feathered spinosaurus! Sure, it's probably not accurate, but speculative paleoart is not a bad thing. We can't (and likely never will) know for sure what all these animals looked like, so what's the harm in exploring and experimenting a bit? Paleoartists are still artists. They're allowed to put their own spin on things, and as long as there's no solid evidence against it (i.e. unfeathered dromaeosaurs) then yeah, I say there's no harm in it!
On the other hand, if anyone's saying these animals definitely had feathers, THEN I understand the frustration. Just like being really insistent on any dubious "fact" about dinosaurs. We've gotta keep an open mind and be open to new information, not get stuck stubbornly clinging to what we want to be true. /points at all the people insisting t-rex had feathers despite evidence to the contrary/
I once saw some really cool speculative art of a feathered spinosaurus! Sure, it's probably not accurate, but speculative paleoart is not a bad thing. We can't (and likely never will) know for sure what all these animals looked like, so what's the harm in exploring and experimenting a bit? Paleoartists are still artists. They're allowed to put their own spin on things, and as long as there's no solid evidence against it (i.e. unfeathered dromaeosaurs) then yeah, I say there's no harm in it!
On the other hand, if anyone's saying these animals definitely had feathers, THEN I understand the frustration. Just like being really insistent on any dubious "fact" about dinosaurs. We've gotta keep an open mind and be open to new information, not get stuck stubbornly clinging to what we want to be true. /points at all the people insisting t-rex had feathers despite evidence to the contrary/
Adult spinosaurs with feathers are cursed. I have however seen art of a spinosaur-'duckling', and it was absolutely precious.
However, the 'everything had feathers'-argument isn't that inaccurate too. Pterosaurs with pycnofibres resembling more complex feathers have been found. And if pycnofibres and feathers are in fact the same thing, then the common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs must already have the genetic information for them.
So, in effect, even if feathers don't show, the genes are there.
Adult spinosaurs with feathers are cursed. I have however seen art of a spinosaur-'duckling', and it was absolutely precious.
However, the 'everything had feathers'-argument isn't that inaccurate too. Pterosaurs with pycnofibres resembling more complex feathers have been found. And if pycnofibres and feathers are in fact the same thing, then the common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs must already have the genetic information for them.
So, in effect, even if feathers don't show, the genes are there.
[quote name="Charias" date="2021-07-11 23:05:07" ]
I once saw some really cool speculative art of a feathered spinosaurus! Sure, it's probably not accurate, but speculative paleoart is not a bad thing. We can't (and likely never will) know for sure what all these animals looked like, so what's the harm in exploring and experimenting a bit? Paleoartists are still artists. They're allowed to put their own spin on things, and as long as there's no solid evidence against it (i.e. unfeathered dromaeosaurs) then yeah, I say there's no harm in it!
On the other hand, if anyone's saying these animals definitely had feathers, THEN I understand the frustration. Just like being really insistent on any dubious "fact" about dinosaurs. We've gotta keep an open mind and be open to new information, not get stuck stubbornly clinging to what we want to be true. /points at all the people insisting t-rex had feathers despite evidence to the contrary/
[/quote]
Yeah, I’m talkin abt the people who put feathers on stuff with evidence to the contrary (ie, the Carnotaurus skin impressions, ankylosaurs, etc)
Charias wrote on 2021-07-11 23:05:07:
I once saw some really cool speculative art of a feathered spinosaurus! Sure, it's probably not accurate, but speculative paleoart is not a bad thing. We can't (and likely never will) know for sure what all these animals looked like, so what's the harm in exploring and experimenting a bit? Paleoartists are still artists. They're allowed to put their own spin on things, and as long as there's no solid evidence against it (i.e. unfeathered dromaeosaurs) then yeah, I say there's no harm in it!
On the other hand, if anyone's saying these animals definitely had feathers, THEN I understand the frustration. Just like being really insistent on any dubious "fact" about dinosaurs. We've gotta keep an open mind and be open to new information, not get stuck stubbornly clinging to what we want to be true. /points at all the people insisting t-rex had feathers despite evidence to the contrary/
Yeah, I’m talkin abt the people who put feathers on stuff with evidence to the contrary (ie, the Carnotaurus skin impressions, ankylosaurs, etc)
I love to look at dinosaur toys with my sister when we go shopping (because she's a teenager and I am an adult, and I love to bug her), and I'm like NO, THEIR HANDS CANNOT BE POSITIONED THAT WAY. THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY!
I love to look at dinosaur toys with my sister when we go shopping (because she's a teenager and I am an adult, and I love to bug her), and I'm like NO, THEIR HANDS CANNOT BE POSITIONED THAT WAY. THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY!
The more we learn about prehistoric life, the more their reconstructions change. In another hundred years, paleontologists will be probably be snickering at how ridiculous our versions looked. Case in point, here is Marsh's 1884 rendition of Stegosaurus.
[img]https://i.redd.it/9q9xzi3hv5a51.jpg[/img]
The more we learn about prehistoric life, the more their reconstructions change. In another hundred years, paleontologists will be probably be snickering at how ridiculous our versions looked. Case in point, here is Marsh's 1884 rendition of Stegosaurus.
I know it's not a dinosaur but I'm imagining a feathered anomalocaris now
I know it's not a dinosaur but I'm imagining a feathered anomalocaris now
[quote name="kwozmotis" date="2021-07-17 04:42:43" ]
I know it's not a dinosaur but I'm imagining a feathered anomalocaris now
[/quote]
let's just tar and feather every creature in prehistory while we're at it XD *feathers the plesiosaurs*
kwozmotis wrote on 2021-07-17 04:42:43:
I know it's not a dinosaur but I'm imagining a feathered anomalocaris now
let's just tar and feather every creature in prehistory while we're at it XD *feathers the plesiosaurs*
[quote name="RasElased" date="2021-07-17 07:10:27" ]
[quote name="kwozmotis" date="2021-07-17 04:42:43" ]
I know it's not a dinosaur but I'm imagining a feathered anomalocaris now
[/quote]
let's just tar and feather every creature in prehistory while we're at it XD *feathers the plesiosaurs*
[/quote]
[font=American Gothic][size=4]
Feather the [i]Hallucigenia[/i]
RasElased wrote on 2021-07-17 07:10:27:
kwozmotis wrote on 2021-07-17 04:42:43:
I know it's not a dinosaur but I'm imagining a feathered anomalocaris now
let's just tar and feather every creature in prehistory while we're at it XD *feathers the plesiosaurs*
Feather the Hallucigenia
Call me Requacy (Pinging Allowed!)(Note to self: Make art for signature)
