What is your least favorite dinosaur?

[Sim]

Yeah we have enough material to know a) what they looked like, and b) that they all looked fairly similar.

No way.  The only idea we have of a megaraptoran head is a juvenile Megaraptor skull.  Australovenator's lower jaw doesn't really show what the head shape is, as can be seen in varying reconstructions of its head.  The head shape of an adult megaraptoran is unknown since theropods head shapes can change through growth.  Close relatives can have quite different head shapes and with all the megaraptoran skull remains being fragmentary, what their heads looked like is basically unknown

[suspsy]

There's no good reason

Yeah we have enough material to know a) what they looked like, and b) that they all looked fairly similar.

No way.  The only idea we have of a megaraptoran head is a juvenile Megaraptor skull.

Incorrect again. Skull material also exists for Aerosteon, Murusraptor, and Orkoraptor, and an adult Megaraptor as well.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Yeah we have enough material to know a) what they looked like, and b) that they all looked fairly similar.

No way.  The only idea we have of a megaraptoran head is a juvenile Megaraptor skull.  Australovenator's lower jaw doesn't really show what the head shape is, as can be seen in varying reconstructions of its head.  The head shape of an adult megaraptoran is unknown since theropods head shapes can change through growth.  Close relatives can have quite different head shapes and with all the megaraptoran skull remains being fragmentary, what their heads looked like is basically unknown

To add on to what was said previously, this is a great composite skeletal of multiple genuses to give a good idea of how much we know, and keep in mind there is still much more material than just what's shown here.

[Takama]

Honestly.  If i had to make a list of most Enigmatic Dinosaur Groups

Megearaptors would rank #1

Yes some are more complete then others, but it never gives a complete picture, and thus (what others said) we are left with only a "composite" of what one may of looked like

I would rank Therizinosaurs #1 but at least we have near Complete skeletons of a few genera in that clade

(Even less with spinossaurids)

[Concavenator]

You're conveniently omitting the fact that Aerosteon, Australovenator, Fukuiraptor, and Murusraptor have skull, torso, and limb material.

"Conveniently omitting". Yes, those genera have preserved scraps of bone from those areas, but I don't see why should I consider said scraps of bone if they don't give us a valuable insight into how the animals looked like (which is not the case). After all, those taxa have to be named after some material, right? Or else they wouldn't exist. 

As @Sim said, (with the available material) we just don't know what an adult megaraptoran's skull looked like. Not for a single species, let alone several. Imagine the only tyrannosaurid we had a well-preserved skull of was Gorgosaurus. That would be just 1 taxon, and even with that, we couldn't guess the skull shapes of Qianzhousaurus, Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus, to give some examples. We also wouldn't be able to guess the morphological (and ecological) changes associated with ontogeny, as is the famous case with Tyrannosaurus, and how different the juveniles look from the adults. Just to put some perspective into how poor our knowledge of Megaraptora is. So not a single well-preserved adult skull.

And it's not that the only well-preserved skulls are complete ones. Meraxes, for instance, has a well-preserved skull despite not being complete. And if we only had the skull of Meraxes and nothing of the postcrania, the rest of it would be reconstructed as a generic Giganotosaurini. Which means we wouldn't have been able to guess traits like the dip along the hips, or the foot's enlarged D-II claw. This again puts into perspective how little we know about Megaraptora.

At the moment, at best, we could say we have an approximate idea of what a juvenile Megaraptor looked like. The rest of megaraptorans (and even adult Megaraptor) are not in a much different position from other theropods of enigmatic nature (like Deltadromeus and Siats).

When it comes to Maip specifically, I find it ironic how, despite purportedly being the largest member of a group famous for their forearms, doesn't even have its forearms preserved!

@DefinitelyNOTDilo Yes, I had seen that composite skeletal before. Again, notice how something as important as the snout comes from a juvenile (and from a single taxon at that). Which means that the picture we have of an adult megaraptoran skull can't be very accurate.

@Takama Yeah, an actual well-preserved megaraptoran (better if derived) would be a big deal, a very relevant discovery.

When it comes to spinosaurids, at least Suchomimus and Baryonyx aren't fragmentary. And Irritator has a well-preserved skull.

[Sim]

Adding to what @Concavenator said, with regards to this: https://www.deviantart.com/getawaytrike/art/Megaraptoran-series-703711797

I had forgotten that the lacrimal fragment from Murusraptor shows it lacks a lacrimal horn.  However, how widespread this feature is among megaraptorans is unknown, megalosaurids sometimes have a lacrimal horn and sometimes don't, depending on the species, this could be the same for megaraptorans.

There's no good reason

Yeah we have enough material to know a) what they looked like, and b) that they all looked fairly similar.

No way.  The only idea we have of a megaraptoran head is a juvenile Megaraptor skull.

Incorrect again. Skull material also exists for Aerosteon, Murusraptor, and Orkoraptor, and an adult Megaraptor as well.

I'm not aware of skull remains from adult Megaraptor?  Additionally, you're taking what I said out of context, what I said which you omitted in the quote is that the head shape of an adult megaraptoran is unknown.  The skull fragments from Orkoraptor and Aerosteon don't show what the head shape is.  And same for Murusraptor's although it is more informative.

[Leyster]

@suspsy well, to begin with, I never mentioned Maip at all...
Second, all fossil species are concepts created upon fossils, which may or may not be true, not real entities. When you say Tyrannosaurus rex, you're referring to nothing more than a brunch of bones (catalogued originally as AMNH 973 and now as CM 9380) that in 1905 Osborn decided to name that way and those that, based on a series of similitudes and differencies, other paleontologists decided came from the same "kind" of animal, whose appearance we can restore with a varying degree of accuracy.
How close is that degree? Well, it becames closer the more remains you have and the more studied the animal is.
When those remains are so poor we can't even aproximate the appearance of a species, it becames less linking the concept of the animal itself and more liking a idea of this animal, often popularized in restorations.


@Concavenator about Maip, you might be interested in the fact that italian paleontologist Andrea Cau did a possible restoration of this species based upon the allometry in theropod size increase, and it looks quite distant from the classical Megaraptoran look. SO Maip is a brunch of bones you can't even safely restore an outline upon. How many people like the few bones the Maip name is attached to and how many the "idea" of Maip?

When I was young, Deltadromeus was represented with a very recognizable (and also totally invented) skull with a three-pointed lacrimal crest. It was supposed to be an oversized coelurosaur, and I remember people saying they love it for that reason, because it was a "10-meters-raptor". Now that Deltadromeus has shifted to a (possibly) more noasaur or elaphrosaur-looking animal, I wonder if they still love it, or if it's no longer cool enough.

[EmperorDinobot]

When I was young, Deltadromeus was represented with a very recognizable (and also totally invented) skull with a three-pointed lacrimal crest. It was supposed to be an oversized coelurosaur, and I remember people saying they love it for that reason, because it was a "10-meters-raptor". Now that Deltadromeus has shifted to a (possibly) more noasaur or elaphrosaur-looking animal, I wonder if they still love it, or if it's no longer cool enough.

I still love Deltadromeus, cooler now that it probably looked like a very big limusaur. I love all noasaurs.

My least favorite dinosaur is still *checks notes* Allosaurus.

[Concavenator]

L @Leyster Is this the Maip reconstruction you're alluding to?



Yeah, wouldn't be surprised if Maip proved to have different proportions from other, smaller, megaraptorids, considering it's meant to be the largest member of the clade (that we know of).

About Deltadromeus, I know what you mean. I remember Dinosaur King's Deltadromeus:

[suspsy]

You're conveniently omitting the fact that Aerosteon, Australovenator, Fukuiraptor, and Murusraptor have skull, torso, and limb material.

"Conveniently omitting". Yes, those genera have preserved scraps of bone from those areas, but I don't see why should I consider said scraps of bone if they don't give us a valuable insight into how the animals looked like (which is not the case).

Come on now. Each and every piece of bone provides valuable insight. This is a well-established fact.

When it comes to Maip specifically, I find it ironic how, despite purportedly being the largest member of a group famous for their forearms, doesn't even have its forearms preserved!

So now you're suggesting that Maip isn't even a megaraptoran? Interesting. Have you informed Rolando, Motta, et al of your hypothesis? Did you even read their paper when it came out for that matter? It's not just the arms that are diagnostic.

I'm not aware of skull remains from adult Megaraptor?  Additionally, you're taking what I said out of context, what I said which you omitted in the quote is that the head shape of an adult megaraptoran is unknown.  The skull fragments from Orkoraptor and Aerosteon don't show what the head shape is.  And same for Murusraptor's although it is more informative.

You stated in no uncertain terms that we have no idea what a megaraptoran's skull looks like, which is indeed demonstrably incorrect. We have a good idea about what part of the skull looked like thanks to Megaraptor, Murusraptor, Australovenator, and others. Not the entire skull, but part of it regardless. You would be better off clarifying your statements in the future in order to avoid such disagreement.

@suspsy well, to begin with, I never mentioned Maip at all...
Second, all fossil species are concepts created upon fossils, which may or may not be true, not real entities. When you say Tyrannosaurus rex, you're referring to nothing more than a brunch of bones (catalogued originally as AMNH 973 and now as CM 9380) that in 1905 Osborn decided to name that way and those that, based on a series of similitudes and differencies, other paleontologists decided came from the same "kind" of animal, whose appearance we can restore with a varying degree of accuracy.
How close is that degree? Well, it becames closer the more remains you have and the more studied the animal is.
When those remains are so poor we can't even aproximate the appearance of a species, it becames less linking the concept of the animal itself and more liking a idea of this animal, often popularized in restorations.

And this is just rhetoric.

You know, it truly is funny how real paleontologists are by and large not all that concerned about the true appearance of prehistoric beasts that aren't known from complete skeletal remains. Indeed, I've yet to see a single one publicly object to how Megaraptor, Maip, and the rest of the megaraptoran family are presently being depicted in paleoart. I reckon they're quite fine with it until some new discovery proves otherwise. I also reckon this exchange has helped prove my original point, which is that objecting to these depictions really has no point. All paleoart is speculative in the end.

And that's the end of my participation in this thread.

[Leyster]

@suspsy to say one, Cau himself expressed perplexity as restoring Therizinosaurus skull exactly like that of a (way) smaller relative (Erlikosaurus). Deinocheirus should've taught us a lesson or two on the matter.

For the rest, well, that's what they taught me when I studied Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology, I didn't knew those I was attending were rethoric courses.

[Sim]

You stated in no uncertain terms that we have no idea what a megaraptoran's skull looks like, which is indeed demonstrably incorrect.

No, I didn't.  I said the only idea we have of a megaraptoran skull is from a juvenile Megaraptor skull.  And later added that Murusraptor helps a bit.  I notice you didn't respond regarding your claim about their being adult Megaraptor skull remains.

You would be better off clarifying your statements in the future in order to avoid such disagreement.

I did.

I also reckon this exchange has helped prove my original point, which is that objecting to these depictions really has no point.

I don't think so.  I think it's presumptuous to dismiss valid feelings people have on this matter, as well as the tone you've been using in this discussion.

[suspsy]

You stated in no uncertain terms that we have no idea what a megaraptoran's skull looks like, which is indeed demonstrably incorrect.

No, I didn't.  I said the only idea we have of a megaraptoran skull is from a juvenile Megaraptor skull.

Which is factually incorrect.

And later added that Murusraptor helps a bit.

And which you should have noted in the first place. And it's more than "a bit." Murusraptor includes a significant portion of both the skull and the lower jaw. Please give proper credit when it is due, regardless of whether or not it contradicts your argument.

I notice you didn't respond regarding your claim about their being adult Megaraptor skull remains.

Last I heard, there are some undescribed fragments believed to belong to an adult specimen. Hopefully they will be studied properly soon. Hopefully.

I don't think so.  I think it's presumptuous to dismiss valid feelings people have on this matter, as well as the tone you've been using in this discussion.

That's fine. As I said last night, I am now quite uninterested in continuing it.

[Sim]

You stated in no uncertain terms that we have no idea what a megaraptoran's skull looks like, which is indeed demonstrably incorrect.

No, I didn't.  I said the only idea we have of a megaraptoran skull is from a juvenile Megaraptor skull.

Which is factually incorrect.

You're taking what I said out of context again.  The next thing I said completed the point.

And later added that Murusraptor helps a bit.

And which you should have noted in the first place. And it's more than "a bit." Murusraptor includes a significant portion of both the skull and the lower jaw. Please give proper credit when it is due, regardless of whether or not it contradicts your argument.

It's interesting that you focus on trivial mistakes people make and make it sound like they deserve rebuke for it.  It's like that time I got Star Wars and Star Trek mixed up in one of your posts.  You're not above making mistakes, are you?  I still think Murusraptor only provides a bit of information on a megaraptoran skull, since most of its remains do not contribute to unpredictable parts of the skull.  I'm a very honest person, so I of course give the credit I understand is appropriate.

I notice you didn't respond regarding your claim about their being adult Megaraptor skull remains.

Last I heard, there are some undescribed fragments believed to belong to an adult specimen. Hopefully they will be studied properly soon. Hopefully.

I hope so!