Top 4 most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Can I say something?

[stargatedalek]

Indeed! As far as I have seen, this arrangement seems to show up on the feet of owls and some other raptors. I wonder what evolutionary pressures were involved? Is it a basal condition to which the owls have returned, or something that they never moved away from in the first place? Are there other birds that show the same?

some varieties of pigeons and chickens also have the same feathering over scales

[Ultimatedinoking]

I'll take your ignoring of me as a yes.

[stargatedalek]

sure, generally theres nothing to stop you saying something

[Dinoguy2]

as I said, integument, not feathers per-se but something similar in appearance

Despite the fact we can prove conclusively many species did not have anything like that?

no such proof exists, as has already been explained scales =/= lack of integument

So is the speculation here trying to suggest fuzz grew from scales, around them or how? Not sure what any of that entire point proves. If you have for instance a hardosaur entirely preserved with scale covering, where do you speculate it was also growing fuzz? Was it growing out between each scale or right through the scale iteself?

Both are seen in Kulindadromeus on various body parts, and some birds on parts of the feet, so either one or both would be likely. There's also a type seen in Kiulinda and some chicken breeds where a scale has a feathered edge.

The one thing i can see here that really disrupts your logic is that Dakota did not have any large body areas with missing integument, whereas your example once fossilized would indeed be either feather outlined or show no integument at all.

Actually, I'm under the impression that, with the owl example, the preserved feet would show evidence of the scales with no sign of feathers - not a "blank" area. Those fine filaments just don't seem to show up in casts the way scales do - even though they can leave trace stains under other circumstances..

[/quote]

A few people on this board are interested in or are becoming paleontologists, so here's your thesis: take an owl foot, stick it in mud, erode it for a while, see what preserves!

[Ultimatedinoking]

sure, generally theres nothing to stop you saying something

True, but last time, it turned into a multiday argument.

[stargatedalek]

well just keep in mind that accuracy does not leave a lot of "wiggle room" for opinions on what someone thinks "looks better"
its perfectly fins to like retro dinosaurs, but they have their time and place

as for the spinosaurus thing, I really don't think it was worth everyone getting so worked up over

[Ultimatedinoking]

well just keep in mind that accuracy does not leave a lot of "wiggle room" for opinions on what someone thinks "looks better"
its perfectly fins to like retro dinosaurs, but they have their time and place

as for the spinosaurus thing, I really don't think it was worth everyone getting so worked up over

I was just going to say another annoying pop hypothesis is the whole T. rex is the chickens closest relative and the thing about t Rex's "frog vision" . Plus stegosaur walnut brains.

All I said was that it was fat. 

[Patrx]

A few people on this board are interested in or are becoming paleontologists, so here's your thesis: take an owl foot, stick it in mud, erode it for a while, see what preserves!

A nice idea, but I think I'd need to wait 65-70 million years to do it properly 

[stargatedalek]

Yah, the chicken =  tyrannosaurus thing probably started either as a joke or to prove a point, but it annoys me too when people take it seriously,  not only that but it makes feathered dinosaurs into a somewhat negative stereotype

frog vision bothers me too,  but it does make for lots of good jokes

even if stegosaurus had a walnut sized brain, thats still decent sized compared to its skull

[John]

I don't really find any popular hypotheses that I may not entirely agree with annoying to be honest.I look at it this way,it forces you to re-evaluate what you may think is right.The worst that can happen is potentially gaining a better understanding.
And just think of the Jurassic Park T. rex vision "...based on movement..." thing as just a plot device to allow the main heroes to stand face to face with a fully grown and hungry Tyrannosaurus without ending up as grease stains on the ground 20 seconds later.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Yah, the chicken =  tyrannosaurus thing probably started either as a joke or to prove a point, but it annoys me too when people take it seriously,  not only that but it makes feathered dinosaurs into a somewhat negative stereotype

frog vision bothers me too,  but it does make for lots of good jokes

even if stegosaurus had a walnut sized brain, thats still decent sized compared to its skull

It is annoying! People get all: "you know, the T. rex (as if there was only one in existence) is closely related to the chicken! I bet it tastes good fried!" Ugh.

But you must remember, to a human, big brains to body size seem to be all that matters 

[Dinoguy2]

Yah, the chicken =  tyrannosaurus thing probably started either as a joke or to prove a point, but it annoys me too when people take it seriously,  not only that but it makes feathered dinosaurs into a somewhat negative stereotype

frog vision bothers me too,  but it does make for lots of good jokes

even if stegosaurus had a walnut sized brain, thats still decent sized compared to its skull

It is annoying! People get all: "you know, the T. rex (as if there was only one in existence) is closely related to the chicken! I bet it tastes good fried!" Ugh.

But you must remember, to a human, big brains to body size seem to be all that matters 

This is something news articles made up to make paleontology sound silly, or because they think the only bird people have ever heard of is the chicken.

"Hey, let's write an article about how T. rex's closest living relatives are birds."
"That's a good idea for an article because birds are stupid and T. rex is cool, so it's stocking to people to think something cool is related to something stupid!"
"Yeah but how can me make people even more shocked by making birds seem even dumber?"
"Instead of bird, let's just say chicken, the dumbest bird of all!"
"Sold!"
*millions of dollars in ad revenue follow*

[Ultimatedinoking]

Yah, the chicken =  tyrannosaurus thing probably started either as a joke or to prove a point, but it annoys me too when people take it seriously,  not only that but it makes feathered dinosaurs into a somewhat negative stereotype

frog vision bothers me too,  but it does make for lots of good jokes

even if stegosaurus had a walnut sized brain, thats still decent sized compared to its skull

It is annoying! People get all: "you know, the T. rex (as if there was only one in existence) is closely related to the chicken! I bet it tastes good fried!" Ugh.

But you must remember, to a human, big brains to body size seem to be all that matters 

This is something news articles made up to make paleontology sound silly, or because they think the only bird people have ever heard of is the chicken.

"Hey, let's write an article about how T. rex's closest living relatives are birds."
"That's a good idea for an article because birds are stupid and T. rex is cool, so it's stocking to people to think something cool is related to something stupid!"
"Yeah but how can me make people even more shocked by making birds seem even dumber?"
"Instead of bird, let's just say chicken, the dumbest bird of all!"
"Sold!"
*millions of dollars in ad revenue follow*

They need to stop it.

[Tyto_Theropod]

That and chickens themselves are actually far from stupid. I heard of an experiment a few years back where chickens were given food in bowls covered with a paper lid which they pecked through to get the reward. The researchers put one shape (say, a circle) over bowls without food in them, and another (let's say a diamond) over bowls that did. Within a matter of weeks the chickens seemed to have learned that diamond=food and circle=no food, and they always pecked through the bowls with the diamonds printed on the cover, but never the ones with circles. I'm sorry I can't provide a like to cite that, but still, it did  interest me. My family keep hens for the eggs and I've always had this feeling that they were smarter than people make them out to be...

On a different, but not unrelated, note, ATM we have Pekin bantams, a lovely breed whose feet are pretty much entirely covered in really long feathers that grown between the scales. I might try and snap a picture of one for you guys before I head off to uni later this week. Meantime, here's the Wikipedia for the breed, and you can do some more googling if you're interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekin_chicken

[HD-man]

I originally posted the following at deviantART ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Most-annoyingly-popular-dino-hypotheses-addend-842963661 ).

This journal entry is an addendum to "SD: Top 4 most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses" ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Top-4-most-annoyingly-popular-dino-hypotheses-395469447 ). I hope that at least some of you will get something out of it.

#3 Update) I've since come around to this hypothesis, partly b/c I was told to think about it in the context of Nanotyrannus (which helps to explain the seemingly adult features of Dracorex: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-origin-of-a-little-tyrant-130792981/ ), & partly b/c I was told to think about it in the context of Triceratops (which, like Pachycephalosaurus, became less spiky w/age: http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2010/07/toroceratops.html ).

#1 Update) I've since come around to this hypothesis, partly b/c I was told to think about it in the context of green iguanas (See 13:00-14:30, which helps to explain baby sauropod digestion: https://archive.org/details/WildlifeDocumentaries/Wildlife+On+One+-+S31+-+E04+-+Iguanas%2C+Living+Like+Dinosaurs.avi ), & partly b/c I was told to think about it in the context of geese (See 12:00-13:30, which also helps to explain baby sauropod digestion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bj0wBMkr5M ).

New #3 Contender) Tie btwn 1) Spinosaurus being quadrupedal ( https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1258750 ), & 2) theropods not having lips (See "Fig. 3": https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1062681 ):
-1) Now that "Ibrahim et al. 2020b" has been published, this hypothesis isn't as annoyingly-popular (See "Posture and balance": https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2020/05/spinosaurus-2020-thoughts-for-artists.html ). However, btwn 2014-2020, it was everywhere, even in otherwise great books.* My major problem is that it's "an extraordinary claim, but [the paper] fails to provide extraordinary evidence for the proportions and center of gravity that make or break this claim" ( https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/there-may-be-more-fishiness-in-spinosaurus9132014 ).
-2) Despite the fact that we've known better since at least the "Dinosaur Renaissance" (See pages 142-145: http://doc.rero.ch/record/232376/files/PAL_E1363.pdf ) & have gone through the "All Yesterdays" movement (a large part of which was un-shrink-wrapping: https://svpow.com/2010/12/13/pimp-my-pod-2-haids/ ), this hypothesis keeps coming back. My major problem is that it seems to rely on hand-waving/ignoring the fact that theropod oral anatomy is MUCH more like that of lipped tetrapods than lipless ones. Said anatomy it best described by Hartman ( https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/the-lip-post1 ) & best illustrated by GSPaul (See "Archosaur Lip Anatomy", page 26: http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/i10851.pdf ).

*I'm specifically referring to Chuang/Yang's "THEM: Age Of Dinosaurs" ( https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2018/09/07/chinese-dinosaur-art-spinosaurus.html ) & Norell's "The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour" ("Theropods were for the most part bipedal, yet a few, such as Spinosaurus, may have been secondarily quadrupedal").

New #1 Contender) "Juvenile and adult[...Deinonychus...]likely consumed different prey" & thus didn't live in packs ( https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003101822030225X ). I have 2 major problems w/this hypothesis: 1) Its results don't really support its conclusions;* 2) It ignores A LOT of contradictory evidence.**

*Quoting Willoughby ( https://web.archive.org/web/20240128091809if_/https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/422590719_288119194270713_8067562584829932676_n.png?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8cd0a2&_nc_ohc=lbcQo7A8iKMAX8wf10U&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=03_AdT3TdxIrp3Ubm9f3ONtT2GGw8G9ypHWLBtinZP9OFCU6Q&oe=65DD7559 ): "A handful of teeth were taken from two sites, divided into a large (adult) and small (juvenile) group of 5 to 6 teeth each, and then a t-test computed for significant mean differences. Only one of the two sites showed a mean diff across size/age groups at p < .05, the other did not."

**In reference to consuming different prey:
-It ignores the "higher proportion of smaller prey items and smaller proportion of larger prey" in the diet of accipitrids "during nesting" (Golden eagles: https://static02.nmbu.no/mina/studier/moppgaver/2012-Skouen.pdf ) (Sparrowhawks: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00063657.2014.940838 ). Since eudromaeosaurs were basically "terrestrial hawks" in terms of ecology/behavior ( https://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/dromaeosaurs-are-terrestrial-hawks/ ), it makes sense that the same would've gone for them. This reminds me of how much I miss "ASK A VELOCIRAPTOR" (which summed up what we knew or could infer about real Velociraptor in a silly/fun way): https://askvelociraptor.tumblr.com/post/23590224406/while-currently-lacking-any-females-andor
-It uses Varricchio et al. 2008 to argue that Deinonychus had Rhea-like paternal care despite the facts that 1) that paper doesn't cover any dromaeosaurids, let alone eudromaeosaurs, & 2) unlike the "more stork-like" omnivores that paper does cover, eudromaeosaurs were raptorial hypercarnivores (See the 1st Bakker quote AWA page 6 in this link: https://books.google.com/books?id=hTTUBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&dq=%22stork-like+than+raptorial%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz4LzOtbDWAhUGOiYKHSyHD5MQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22stork-like%20than%20raptorial%22&f=false ).
-It focuses on teeth, yet ignores the fact that "juvenile teeth display the same features as those of adults, but on a smaller scale" ( https://www.academia.edu/1974330/SWEETMAN_S._C._2004._The_first_record_of_velociraptorine_dinosaurs_Saurischia_Theropoda_from_the_Wealden_Early_Cretaceous_Barremian_of_southern_England._Cretaceous_Research_25_353-364 ), which means "that hatchlings were feeding on prey tissue of the same general texture and consistency as that fed upon by adults" (See the 2nd Bakker quote).

Quoting Bakker (See "Raptor Red"): "Female dominance is a powerful piece of evidence that permits us to reconstruct the private lives of Cretaceous predatory dinosaurs. A family structure built around a large female is rare in meat-eating reptiles and mammals today, but it's the rule for one category of predatory species — carnivorous birds. Owls, hawks, and eagles have societies organized around female dominance, and we can think of tyrannosaurs and raptors as giant, ground-running eagles."

Quoting Bakker (See Wolberg's "Dinofest International: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored By Arizona State University", page 62): "A striking difference exists in modern communities between cold-blooded predators and hot-blooded predators. Most bird and mammal species feed their young until the youngsters are almost full size; then and only then do the young set out to hunt on their own. Consequently, the very young mammals and birds do not chose food items independently of the parents. Young lions and eagles feed on parts of carcasses from relatively large prey killed by the parents. Most snakes, lizards, and turtles do not feed the young after birth, and the new-born reptiles must find prey suitably diminutive to fit the size of the baby reptilian jaws and teeth. A single individual lizard during its lifetime usually feeds over a much wider size range of prey than a single individual weasel or hawk, because the lizard begins its life hunting independently.
Therefore, a predatory guild of three lizard species with adult weights 10g, 100g and 1000g would require a much wider range of prey size than a guild of three mammal predator species with the same adult weights. If allosaurs had a lizard-like parental behavior, then each individual allosaur would require a wide size range in prey as it grew up. The evidence of the Como lair sites strongly suggests that the dinosaur predatory guild was constructed more like that of hot-blooded carnivores than that of lizards or snakes.
This theory receives support from the shape of the baby allosaur teeth. In many cold-blooded reptilian predators today, the crown shape in the very young is quite different from the adult crown shape. For example, hatchling alligators have the same number of tooth sockets in each jaw as do the adults, but the hatchling crowns are very much sharper and more delicate. In the hatchling all the teeth are nearly the same shape, and the young gators have less differentiation of crown size and shape along the tooth row; the hatchlings lack the massive, projecting canine teeth and the very broad, acorn-shaped posterior crowns of the adults. Young gators feed extensively on water insects, and the sharp crowns are designed for such insectivorous habits. Adult gator species use their canine teeth for killing large prey, such as deer, and employ the acorn crowns to crush large water snails and turtles (Chabreck, 1971; Delaney and Abercrombie, 1986; McNease and Joanen, 1977; Web et al, 1987).
If allosaur hatchlings fed independent of adults, I would not expect the hatchling tooth crowns to be the same over-all shape as that of the adult. However, the over-all tooth crown shape in the tiniest allosaur IS identical to that of the adult (figs. 3,4). Thus it appears that hatchlings were feeding on prey tissue of the same general texture and consistency as that fed upon by adults."

**In reference to not living in packs: It ignores the best evidence for pack-hunting in Deinonychus (I.e. Shed teeth in general & MOR 682 in particular; See the Maxwell quote) despite having cited Maxwell & Ostrom 1995 ( https://sci-hub.st/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4523664 ). In other words, Deinonychus pack-hunting probably looked something like this: https://softdinosaurs.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/antlers-formationwtmk.jpg

Quoting Maxwell ( https://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/master.html?https://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1299/1299_feature.html ): "Nobody knows for certain what took place at the Shrine site. We do know, however, that whether hunted down and killed by a pack or simply scavenged after death, Tenontosaurus was the preferred food of Deinonychus. Approximately eighty occurrences of Tenontosaurus remains have been discovered in the Cloverly formation to date, and thirty-five include Deinonychus teeth. While Deinonychus fossils are rarely found with other possible prey animals, three or four Deinonychus teeth typically turn up wherever there are Tenontosaurus remains. And at a site discovered in the Cloverly formation in 1992, there were even more.

Laid out in its death pose at this new site was a beautifully preserved, near-complete specimen of a young Tenontosaurus. Four Deinonychus teeth were found alongside the bones; later, in the laboratory, seven more teeth were uncovered. It's possible that a few more teeth were missed in the field or unwittingly discarded during preparation because they were concealed within small lumps of rock. So we have a subadult Tenontosaurus no more than fourteen feet long (compared with a length of about twenty feet for the adult at the Shrine site), preserved with at least eleven Deinonychus teeth.

But how can we distinguish between the remains of a victim hunted down and devoured by a pack and an animal that simply died and was scavenged by a few passing Deinonychus? As is the case at the Shrine site, this Tenontosaurus was preserved where it died. After death, the desiccation of the abundant supporting tendons that line the vertebrae of the neck and tail cause these parts to coil. The tail of Tenontosaurus, which accounts for about one-third of the animal's total length, is particularly heavy with supporting tendons. In this specimen, the pronounced curvature of the tail and the neck toward each other effectively counters any claim that the bones were carried to the site by water currents. The Deinonychus teeth were found in the region of the abdomen and pelvis, suggesting that the predators lost their teeth while feeding on the viscera. Most modern carnivores begin with the areas around the anus and abdomen when they feast on freshly killed prey, and it's likely that carnivorous dinosaurs did the same.

The number of teeth indicate that more than one Deinonychus was involved with the carcass. Like all other theropod dinosaurs, Deinonychus shed and replaced teeth throughout its life. The teeth would fall out upon the animal's reaching maturity but also could be wrenched out earlier by the stress associated with the biting and tearing of flesh. Because of this, theropod teeth are very common in sediments containing dinosaur fossils. The teeth from this site vary from recently erupted to fully mature ones. Given that Deinonychus had only sixty teeth in its jaws at any one time, it's unlikely that all eleven were wrenched from the mouth of just one feeding animal. This would leave the Deinonychus toothless after five similar meals. The possibility that Deinonychus was replacing shed teeth in a few weeks or months, and therefore had the ability to sustain such dramatic tooth loss, was quashed by Greg Erickson, who, as a master's degree student at the Museum of the Rockies, worked on replacement rates of teeth in various dinosaurs and living reptiles. After CT-scanning portions of the lower jaw of Deinonychus and studying individual teeth, he came up with an estimate of 300 days for the time it took Deinonychus to replace a shed tooth with a mature one.

We know that this Tenontosaurus was not yet an adult, so it didn't die of old age. Of course, this doesn't rule out death from disease or injury and doesn't confirm that it was cut down by a pack, but it's a start. Next, we have a concentration of teeth around the abdomen and pelvis. This may indicate that the pack fed on the abdominal contents while they were still warm and moist. If, after the viscera had been consumed, the remainder of the carcass was scavenged over time by many individuals, we would expect a much more disturbed carcass and a wider scattering of teeth. Similarly, if the Tenontosaurus had been killed by a larger predator-such as the unknown owner of the three-inch-long serrated teeth that occasionally crop up in the Cloverly formation—then whatever remained of the carcass would have been strewn around the area."

[brontosauruschuck]

Well, I only had time to skim it ATM, but this all sounds rather interesting, and I look forward to reading it more thoroughly later.

[HD-man]

B @brontosauruschuck

Well, I only had time to skim it ATM, but this all sounds rather interesting, and I look forward to reading it more thoroughly later.

Many thanks for the kind words.

[John]

*