Submitted 2 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/9b3f6d24-c8f4-4f20-b316-517d87308737.jpeg
So one of the biggest leaps they have made in reconstruction over the last few decades is matching similar bone structure that supports soft tissue. It doesn't work for all soft tissue, but if the beavers tail bones have bumps or other features that hint at supporting extra soft tissue there is a chance.
All the stuff birds have, like inflatable neck sacks and feathers that move with muscles are examples of things we absolutely wouldn't get with fossils that are even better than a beaver tail.
The Prehistoric Planet documentary series does it with sauropods, it’s pretty sick.
The idea of non-avian dinosaurs with the diverse features and behaviors birds have is very fun to me, and I hope depictions of birdsaurs becomes as common as classic dinosaur depictions.
I always appreciate an enthusiastic and educational response to situations like this.
Also, in 40 million years, you can match the beaver fossils to the bones of their still living descendants and find similar features.
No. This was created by someone who has no idea how any of this work. Soft tissues leave marks on bones.
Soft tissues can also become fossils under the right conditions. For an example, here is the fossil used for the B. markmitchelli holotype:
The articles on that are a fascinating read, thank you!
Don’t ruin my dream of fluffy dinosaurs 😭
Smaller dinosaurs might have had fluff, bigger ones probably didn’t, like most big mammals.
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…
It is thought now that dinosaurs had a sort of fluff. Like feathers but not evolved to fly with yet.
Too late, i already imagined a flat-tailed T-rex.
Soft tissues leave marks on bones
Could you explain how they leave marks?
Your bones aren’t just swimming around in a sea of muscles. They are attached to the muscles and sinews. So those places where they are attached are formed in specific ways depending on what is attached.
Fossils many times are more than bones and we get actual imprints of their whole tail or other parts of them
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.
It’s only obvious because you already know what a beaver looks like.
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.
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.
Sure maybe they might not get that it wasn’t fuzzy without any fossils if it, and maybe they make it slightly less round,
In other words, their depiction would completely different.
If you take out the word ‘completely’ you’ve got it.
This is some real RFK level science here.
It’s sneaking up on creationist levels of science, like where they argue recreations of Australopithecus are just ‘imagination’ and present their own version of Lucy as as a quadriped, completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence from her skeleton that she could not have walked that way (and also ignoring that we have hundreds of other specimens of her species).
It really seems that lots of people’s conception of these fields is based on very outdated concepts, either unaware or ignoring all the evidence and advancements of the past 50 years or so.
All dinosaurs had beaver tails, got it!
Also the bones need to be in the right position
They always use mammals for that kind of comparison. Show me a reptile with that kind of muscle/fat composition.
Penguins?
Birds? You mean the last remaining dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs were not reptiles. They were warm blooded, and birds descended from them.
Birds are reptiles. Commonly, we wouldn’t say so, but they’re in the same clade. The avians are closer related to the crocadilians than the crocs are to other reptiles like the squamates - lizards and snakes.
That is one cute beaver pic on the left. PM more of your beavers.
Sure but also there are some fossils that DO have skin, and some even have preserved organs. And some have feathers, which is a pretty good indicator that there wasn’t some large feature we’re missing.
No doubt we are wrong on lots of counts, but I think we have good evidence for a lot of it as well.
Do beavers enjoy… Uppies??
One thing I wouldn’t mind AI to do, train a model with standardised data like this, and have it match the reconstruction. After that it can use common and less common reconstructions. After that try to map as much info from a dinosaur fossil to said standardised data structure and generate possible reconstruction for said dinosaur
Oh. I like this idea. This is the kind of thing AI would be good for.
We do now know that dinosaurs were the four bearers 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.
Pseudo scientists have answers for everything.
At every period of human history experts have claimed to have all of the answers to every question. They’ve never been right about that but people assume now they are. Dinosaurs are a case in point, as egypt, peru, et al are.
They were warm blooded
They were actually in a weird limbo between warm-blooded and cold-blooded, with many features pointing in different directions.
I like to imagine T. rex arms were small because that’s how they communicated with their octopus rider.
They evolved to be small so they cold more easily fit into the actuator gauntlets that controlled the Gundam.
What a marvellous time for paleobootyology.
They look at related and similarly adapted modern animals when trying to make visualizations of fossils, it’s all just guessing.
Now I want to see some pics of dinosaurs with beaver tails
All dinosaurs looked like beavers of varying sizes and lengths.
This was a problem, which is nowadays accounted for.
I’ve just watched the new movie and damn it’s so stupid compared to the original ones.
i saw someone draw a hippo based solely on the skeletal remains. they looked nothing alike.
now think about apple fossils
Steve Jobs?
Dinosaurs were probably chonky birbs.
InvalidName2@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
I don’t think dinosaurs were taking x-rays of beaver tails, my dude. Go read a book sometime.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Don’t velociraptors have xray vision though?
defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
That’s why they’re called velociraptors.
Ste41th@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Only on weekends
zip@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
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 2 months ago
Idiot, why do you think We can see all their bones?
m532@lemmygrad.ml 2 months ago
We need to give birds x-ray machines asap.