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.
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 :)
Soft tissues can also become fossils under the right conditions. For an example, here is the fossil used for the B. markmitchelli holotype:
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.)
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
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.
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.
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.
74 Comments
InvalidName2@lemmy.zip · 216 pts · 349d
I don't think dinosaurs were taking x-rays of beaver tails, my dude. Go read a book sometime.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 349d
Don't velociraptors have xray vision though?
defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 349d
That's why they're called velociraptors.
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social · 12 pts · 349d
I thought they were called like this because of their love of bicycles.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 348d
Jaws was never their scene.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 349d
Nah, you're thinking of the much more dangerous "acceleraptors". Velociraptors were very different from how they are commonly portrayed.
railwhale@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 349d
So then distanceraptors are yet to be discoverd?
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 348d
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.
ellohir@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 348d
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 · 2 pts · 348d
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.
Ste41th@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 349d
Only on weekends
zip@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 348d
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 :)
stupidcasey@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 349d
Idiot, why do you think We can see all their bones?
But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world · 122 pts · 349d
Fossils many times are more than bones and we get actual imprints of their whole tail or other parts of them
Zexks@lemmy.world · 121 pts · 349d
No. This was created by someone who has no idea how any of this work. Soft tissues leave marks on bones.
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 138 pts · 349d
Soft tissues can also become fossils under the right conditions. For an example, here is the fossil used for the B. markmitchelli holotype:
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.
volvoxvsmarla@sopuli.xyz · 20 pts · 349d
The articles on that are a fascinating read, thank you!
bytesonbike@discuss.online · 29 pts · 349d
Don't ruin my dream of fluffy dinosaurs ðŸ˜
leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 349d
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 · 2 pts · 346d
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.
hector@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 349d
It is thought now that dinosaurs had a sort of fluff. Like feathers but not evolved to fly with yet.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 349d
Too late, i already imagined a flat-tailed T-rex.
sleen@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 349d
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de · 39 pts · 349d
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.
LillyPip@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 348d
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.
snooggums@piefed.world · 112 pts · 349d
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.
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 51 pts · 349d
Well, now I want to see an artist's rendition of a T. rex doing this:
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 349d
The Prehistoric Planet documentary series does it with sauropods, it’s pretty sick.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 346d
i'm also a big fan of carnotaurus' tiny piddly arms being brightly colored on the inside and them waving them around like mad
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 349d
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 · 3 pts · 348d
I want to see a T. Rex do this.
sleen@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 349d
ch00f@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 349d
Also, in 40 million years, you can match the beaver fossils to the bones of their still living descendants and find similar features.
TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip · 66 pts · 349d
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.
MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 349d
Vibe coded lion:
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 349d
It’s only obvious because you already know what a beaver looks like.
TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip · 34 pts · 349d
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.
Gullible@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 349d
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.
aramova@infosec.pub · 63 pts · 349d
This is some real RFK level science here.
LillyPip@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 348d
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.
Zugyuk@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 349d
latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 35 pts · 349d
All dinosaurs had beaver tails, got it!
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 348d
Also the bones need to be in the right position
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br · 24 pts · 349d
They always use mammals for that kind of comparison. Show me a reptile with that kind of muscle/fat composition.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 349d
The phylogenetic definition of reptile includes birds, so... Penguins, I suppose?
lengau@midwest.social · 13 pts · 349d
Birds? You mean the last remaining dinosaurs?
hector@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 349d
Dinosaurs were not reptiles. They were warm blooded, and birds descended from them.
abir_v@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 348d
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.
LillyPip@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 348d
Also people are fish. You can’t evolve out of your clade.
abir_v@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 348d
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.
LillyPip@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 348d
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?)
abir_v@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 348d
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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii
LillyPip@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 348d
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’.)
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 24 pts · 349d
That is one cute beaver pic on the left. PM more of your beavers.
pennomi@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 349d
bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 349d
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
echindod@programming.dev · 3 pts · 349d
Oh. I like this idea. This is the kind of thing AI would be good for.
sad_detective_man@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 349d
Do beavers enjoy..... Uppies??
LillyPip@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 348d
Seems so.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 349d
I like to imagine T. rex arms were small because that's how they communicated with their octopus rider.
Agent641@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 348d
They evolved to be small so they cold more easily fit into the actuator gauntlets that controlled the Gundam.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 349d
What a marvellous time for paleobootyology.
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 349d
Now I want to see some pics of dinosaurs with beaver tails
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 348d
They look at related and similarly adapted modern animals when trying to make visualizations of fossils, it's not all just guessing.
hakunawazo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 348d
Scrollone@feddit.it · 2 pts · 347d
I've just watched the new movie and damn it's so stupid compared to the original ones.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 347d
This was a problem, which is nowadays accounted for.
Taleya@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 347d
Beaversaurs
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 347d
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 349d
now think about apple fossils
humorlessrepost@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 349d
Steve Jobs?
Geodad@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 347d
hector@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 349d
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 · 21 pts · 349d
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.
hector@lemmy.today · -11 pts · 349d
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 · 18 pts · 349d
This is straight from the Pseudo Scientist playbook, well established Graham Hancock shtick.
CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org · 9 pts · 349d
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.