I hope what you're implying is that swan feathers are a suit made to deceive humans from their obvious lizard people pet agenda, and that Big Feather needs to be held accountable. I've already booked guests for the podcast and have 17 articles in my substack,
Weirdly, the notion that swans are particularly aggressive is one I learnt on the English-speaking part of the internet (so I instantly assume it's an USianism). Any references to swan behaviour that I can find in German talk about how they're associated with calm and serenity.
I've hung out with swans heaps in Australia and they've been almost entirely chill bros who will take food if offered but won't harass you for it. I wonder if different species have different demeanours, like how Canada geese are known for being especially aggressive.
i have to wonder if americans uh, get them confused with geese.. Because geese can absolutely have a tendency to actively harass you, while swans don't get close enough to interact with us in the first place.
Unless american swans are just suffering from lead poisoning like the general population?
Don't know, I've seen swans being total assholes in Finland, in Estonia, in Czechia, so maybe in Germany around Baltic shore they are also not seen as calm
There are a lot of animals that are seen completely not how they are, based on vibes, like wise owls, or cunning snakes, etc
I think it's funny how people go on about majestic horses. They're not majestic, they are uncoordinated panicky idiots.
My aunt has a horse and I've seen him run into a tree, there's one single tree in his paddock and it's a giant oak, and he's run into it at least three times. He panics if he can't see his friend, often because his friend is behind him, and then runs madly around until he crashes into something, or stumbles into the pond.
This is the horse and had a panic attack because the farmer had bought a new wheelbarrow and it looked different to the one he was used to.
I want to see a Jurassic Park movie where it's just realistic velociraptors breaking out of captivity and are just mildly annoying. Then the main character gets stomped on by a brachiosaurus.
That statement should start with "in the past". Recent depictions I've seen have them fully fleshed and feathered using up to date methods to create as accurate as possible models.
They found preserved melanosomes. It was previously thought these were the remains of bacteria.
You can find details here, but I highly recommend reading Dinosaurs: New Visions of a Lost World by Michael J. Benton, who was one of the ones doing the research. The book is very fun to read (he's got that typical dry british humour), does a great job of describing the history and current status of paleontology (which is apparently exploding in new discoveries right now) and it has absolutely lovely illustrations, including the one I linked above. And also this anurognathus that is the cutest thing ever:
I just ordered it. I had a girlfriend a few years ago and she was cleaning out some stuff. She found her old dinosaur stuff and asked me if i wanted it for my nephew. I asked her how outdated the things were. She looked at me pretty shocked and said: they are millions of years old, nothing has changed. I found that pretty funny
yeah, we have some absolutely amazing art these days. i particularly love this type of depiction of dromaeosaurs: Just MASSIVE birds with teeth instead of beaks and huge claws, they feel very.. cromulent..
That post is of course a billion years old itself and the images created by shrink-wrapping are still in people's heads. Feathers on dinosaurs are rarely what people think of first as well and the notion has been around for quite a while.
Ah, got it. Yes, but is that an argument against what I said? Both non-shrink-wrapped dinosaurs and dinosaurs with feathers haven't reached the general public conscience (and I'd argue feathers as a concept are easier to convey, actually, so they should take less time). So when popular science like the post in the OP talks about what depictions "do" instead of "did", it's talking to the public.
Maybe they don't fit under the term of "paleoartists" (they are artists of Paleolithic creatures) but the most popular modern depictions of dinosaurs are presumably the Jurrasic World movies, and I think they are almost universally lacking plumage. I've only seen the first, but the images I've seen I don't have any feathered dinos. So, no. This is still an ongoing issue.
Is it all the dinosaurs? Or just ones from specific eras that likely had feathers? Ill try to find ou5 myself later. But if anybody has a link to something akin to "feathered dinos for dummies" id love to check it out
From what i've seen it's basically 50/50 if any one species had a significant amount of feathers, but feathers do seem to have existed in the earliest dinosaur ancestor so it could maybe potentially show up in any species.
Then you can get more detailed and memorize which kinds of dinosaur had what kind of feather covering, like sauropods seem to at most have some quills and similar decorations, while dromaeosaurs (dakotaraptor, velociraptor, etc) were basically big murder birds with full on wings.
But of course even within clades there could be significant difference: T.rex seems to have been, uh, covered in straight up skin like a giant plucked chicken.. but at least some of its relatives were mostly covered in feathers.
All birds today are actually coelurosauria dinosaurs, a group of theropods (T-rex and raptor-shape dinosaurs) who are thought to have all had feathers for warmth, show, and/or gliding and flight. I know we have evidence that some other theropods had feathers (or at least hairy stuff), but I don't know whether the rest of them are lacking evidence of feathers or whether we have evidence against them having feathers.
I would also love such a book, preferably with lots of pictures.
it's not like documentaries aren't plenty popular, that recent series on dinosaurs (walking with dinosaurs, i think?) with our homeboy David Attenborough was hyped as fuck, no cap, on god, etc
While the look is based in old misconceptions of dinosaur biology, the Jurassic Park dinos lacking feathers actually works really well for the story. They were never meant to be real dinosaurs. They're just theme park attractions, so of course they look how the customers expect them to. Just like how most of them aren't even from the Jurassic period.
Yes that was the retcon explanation. The actual explanation is that they wanted to have Velociraptors in the movie and weren't really bothered about the fact that they aren't actually that big, there are species of raptor that are that large, but they didn't want to use their names because they were less well-known. Velociraptor was one of the few dinosaurs people knew. T-Rex didn't become famous until after Jurassic Park.
T-Rex didn't become famous until after Jurassic Park.
Really? I thought everyone knew T-rex when I was a kid. The only pick for Land Before Time I thought was weird was Duckie because I'm still not 100% sure what she is despite having looked it up a few times. The rest of the cast are what I'd consider your classic dinosaurs. But it's hard to know what other people know when you're an autistic kid.
74 Comments
Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de · 123 pts · 181d
So without their feathers they look like they act?
GreenShimada@lemmy.world · 61 pts · 181d
I hope what you're implying is that swan feathers are a suit made to deceive humans from their obvious lizard people pet agenda, and that Big Feather needs to be held accountable. I've already booked guests for the podcast and have 17 articles in my substack,
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 181d
I want to see a Jurassic Park movie where it's just geese and swans breaking out of captivity, and mildly annoying everyone.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 181d
You’ve never met a swan, have you?
“Mild annoyance” are the seagulls stealing your food.
(Yes, that swan dunked the seagull so it couldn’t fly away.)
Swans don’t steal food. You give it to them hoping they don’t murder you.
Lumidaub@feddit.org · 6 pts · 181d
Weirdly, the notion that swans are particularly aggressive is one I learnt on the English-speaking part of the internet (so I instantly assume it's an USianism). Any references to swan behaviour that I can find in German talk about how they're associated with calm and serenity.
rumba@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 180d
That's because the Germans have enough sense and morals to leave them alone :)
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 181d
They are calm... by German standards.
brisk@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 180d
I've hung out with swans heaps in Australia and they've been almost entirely chill bros who will take food if offered but won't harass you for it. I wonder if different species have different demeanours, like how Canada geese are known for being especially aggressive.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 180d
i have to wonder if americans uh, get them confused with geese.. Because geese can absolutely have a tendency to actively harass you, while swans don't get close enough to interact with us in the first place.
Unless american swans are just suffering from lead poisoning like the general population?
sukhmel@programming.dev · 2 pts · 180d
Don't know, I've seen swans being total assholes in Finland, in Estonia, in Czechia, so maybe in Germany around Baltic shore they are also not seen as calm
There are a lot of animals that are seen completely not how they are, based on vibes, like wise owls, or cunning snakes, etc
echodot@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 180d
I think it's funny how people go on about majestic horses. They're not majestic, they are uncoordinated panicky idiots.
My aunt has a horse and I've seen him run into a tree, there's one single tree in his paddock and it's a giant oak, and he's run into it at least three times. He panics if he can't see his friend, often because his friend is behind him, and then runs madly around until he crashes into something, or stumbles into the pond.
This is the horse and had a panic attack because the farmer had bought a new wheelbarrow and it looked different to the one he was used to.
cazssiew@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 180d
In my experience it's more of a specifically British phobia. They have these sayings about swans breaking arms...
sukhmel@programming.dev · 1 pts · 180d
I like the title of the seagull video, that's very on point
GreenShimada@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 181d
"Remain perfectly still, their vision is based on movement."
"Nah, fuck this bird." Kicks swan to the moon
FrankDeath@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 180d
Boy have I got the video game for you: Untitled Goose Game
Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 180d
Hot Fuzz. But with a swan.
Klear@quokk.au · 2 pts · 181d
I want to see a Jurassic Park movie where it's just realistic velociraptors breaking out of captivity and are just mildly annoying. Then the main character gets stomped on by a brachiosaurus.
AffineConnection@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 180d
I actually made an AI video of exactly what you just described.
waterore@lemmy.world · 72 pts · 181d
That statement should start with "in the past". Recent depictions I've seen have them fully fleshed and feathered using up to date methods to create as accurate as possible models.
Klear@quokk.au · 49 pts · 181d
We even have ways to figure out their colouring in some cases now! Like this sinosauropteryx:
khannie@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 181d
That's cool. How did they figure out the colouring?
Klear@quokk.au · 28 pts · 181d
They found preserved melanosomes. It was previously thought these were the remains of bacteria.
You can find details here, but I highly recommend reading Dinosaurs: New Visions of a Lost World by Michael J. Benton, who was one of the ones doing the research. The book is very fun to read (he's got that typical dry british humour), does a great job of describing the history and current status of paleontology (which is apparently exploding in new discoveries right now) and it has absolutely lovely illustrations, including the one I linked above. And also this anurognathus that is the cutest thing ever:
khannie@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 181d
That's cool. We're going to look back at present views of dinosaurs with laughter it sounds like. Thanks for the answer. I'll check out the book.
FatVegan@leminal.space · 12 pts · 181d
I just ordered it. I had a girlfriend a few years ago and she was cleaning out some stuff. She found her old dinosaur stuff and asked me if i wanted it for my nephew. I asked her how outdated the things were. She looked at me pretty shocked and said: they are millions of years old, nothing has changed. I found that pretty funny
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 181d
omg look at it, it's like a ferret with giant legs
toynbee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 181d
That guy sounds snotty.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 17 pts · 180d
yeah, we have some absolutely amazing art these days. i particularly love this type of depiction of dromaeosaurs: Just MASSIVE birds with teeth instead of beaks and huge claws, they feel very.. cromulent..
Lumidaub@feddit.org · 6 pts · 181d
That post is of course a billion years old itself and the images created by shrink-wrapping are still in people's heads. Feathers on dinosaurs are rarely what people think of first as well and the notion has been around for quite a while.
kilgore_trout@feddit.it · 18 pts · 181d
Feathers have been found on dinosaur fossils only "recently", with the discovery of Sinosauropteryx in 1996
Lumidaub@feddit.org · 2 pts · 181d
Sorry, not entirely sure what you're saying?
kilgore_trout@feddit.it · 1 pts · 180d
I am claiming that the notion has been circulating only for the last 30 years.
Lumidaub@feddit.org · 1 pts · 180d
Ah, got it. Yes, but is that an argument against what I said? Both non-shrink-wrapped dinosaurs and dinosaurs with feathers haven't reached the general public conscience (and I'd argue feathers as a concept are easier to convey, actually, so they should take less time). So when popular science like the post in the OP talks about what depictions "do" instead of "did", it's talking to the public.
kilgore_trout@feddit.it · 1 pts · 179d
I was not contradicting you, only adding context.
FatVegan@leminal.space · 3 pts · 180d
I mean the lizard dinosaurs are everywhere. Every toy, movie, even in schools.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 181d
Maybe they don't fit under the term of "paleoartists" (they are artists of Paleolithic creatures) but the most popular modern depictions of dinosaurs are presumably the Jurrasic World movies, and I think they are almost universally lacking plumage. I've only seen the first, but the images I've seen I don't have any feathered dinos. So, no. This is still an ongoing issue.
Gumus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 30 pts · 180d
themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 180d
A giant chicken, truly terrifying.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip · 25 pts · 181d
New pokemon looks different
Meron35@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 181d
Karjalan@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 181d
It's neck is tied into a fucking knot 😂
That said though, this birb slaps. Really high power and good typing for the early game
brown567@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 181d
It's the go-to for S/V speedrunning for a reason! Low kick, double kick, and acrobatics turn it into a bulldozer XD
sploosh@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 180d
Choose Goose is looking rough.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 181d
I am both frightened and aroused
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 180d
Is it all the dinosaurs? Or just ones from specific eras that likely had feathers? Ill try to find ou5 myself later. But if anybody has a link to something akin to "feathered dinos for dummies" id love to check it out
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 180d
From what i've seen it's basically 50/50 if any one species had a significant amount of feathers, but feathers do seem to have existed in the earliest dinosaur ancestor so it could maybe potentially show up in any species.
Then you can get more detailed and memorize which kinds of dinosaur had what kind of feather covering, like sauropods seem to at most have some quills and similar decorations, while dromaeosaurs (dakotaraptor, velociraptor, etc) were basically big murder birds with full on wings.
But of course even within clades there could be significant difference: T.rex seems to have been, uh, covered in straight up skin like a giant plucked chicken.. but at least some of its relatives were mostly covered in feathers.
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 179d
Thank you! Now you owe me no explanation of course, and ill verify this information if I need to.
But may I ask, are you just well read in this department, or some sort of professional/expert?
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 179d
i'm just autistic and have re-watched all of Your Dinosaurs Are Wrong like 5 times
stray@pawb.social · 4 pts · 180d
All birds today are actually coelurosauria dinosaurs, a group of theropods (T-rex and raptor-shape dinosaurs) who are thought to have all had feathers for warmth, show, and/or gliding and flight. I know we have evidence that some other theropods had feathers (or at least hairy stuff), but I don't know whether the rest of them are lacking evidence of feathers or whether we have evidence against them having feathers.
I would also love such a book, preferably with lots of pictures.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 181d
This is so outdated it's wrong.
veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 181d
Those old-paleoartists were really unfettered.
scott_anon_21@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 180d
🤣
Alberat@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 181d
crazy how there's billion dollar movies that have embarrassingly incorrect dinosaurs in them
filcuk@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 181d
Movies often align to the popular perception if a thing rather than reality. Otherwise you're watching a documentary.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 180d
it's not like documentaries aren't plenty popular, that recent series on dinosaurs (walking with dinosaurs, i think?) with our homeboy David Attenborough was hyped as fuck, no cap, on god, etc
echodot@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 180d
Walking with dinosaurs is like 20 years old it's not recent.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 179d
the new one lol, people were really excited about it so it's weird that you missed it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_with_Dinosaurs_(2025_TV_series)
Alberat@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 180d
Dino DNA!
stray@pawb.social · 5 pts · 180d
While the look is based in old misconceptions of dinosaur biology, the Jurassic Park dinos lacking feathers actually works really well for the story. They were never meant to be real dinosaurs. They're just theme park attractions, so of course they look how the customers expect them to. Just like how most of them aren't even from the Jurassic period.
echodot@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 180d
Yes that was the retcon explanation. The actual explanation is that they wanted to have Velociraptors in the movie and weren't really bothered about the fact that they aren't actually that big, there are species of raptor that are that large, but they didn't want to use their names because they were less well-known. Velociraptor was one of the few dinosaurs people knew. T-Rex didn't become famous until after Jurassic Park.
stray@pawb.social · 2 pts · 180d
Really? I thought everyone knew T-rex when I was a kid. The only pick for Land Before Time I thought was weird was Duckie because I'm still not 100% sure what she is despite having looked it up a few times. The rest of the cast are what I'd consider your classic dinosaurs. But it's hard to know what other people know when you're an autistic kid.
Wynnded@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 180d
They'd look like dinosaurs.
Soup@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 180d
They already look like dinosaurs.
kalpol@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 180d
They already are dinosaurs
Soup@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 180d
That’s what I was gettin’ at, yeah
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 180d
I fucking knew it, they’re Tyranids!!
craftrabbit@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 181d
Wet owl moment
heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 181d
If swans were making a metal band...
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 181d
They did.
zwerg@feddit.org · 2 pts · 181d
Nah, they were an industrial band from the 80s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swans_(band)
TallonMetroid@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 181d
"Scientists believe that these strange creatures used their spiky arms to spear their prey."
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 181d
I’d say ‘nope!’ But they kinda look tasty…
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 181d
They can break a man’s arm.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 181d
british detected 🚨🚨🚨
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 180d
Not if you punt em
SprateHeader@piefed.social · -6 pts · 181d