Dinosaur lips?

[Takama]

It also gives us a better idea of what the faces of these animals looked like



http://westerndigs.org/dinosaur-fossils-found-in-montana-reveal-tyrannosaurs-true-face-it-didnt-have-lips/

[CrypticPrism]

I don't care about this article because it prominently features jack horner talking about it, and he's spread ridiculousness across the Dino community several times.

[Jose S.M.]

The only thing about Horner that I read was that it's species name is dedicated to him, other paleontologist where quoted, whose credibility I ignore. Still I think that disregard a study completely because it mentions certain person is not entirely right. But to each their own I guess.

[Patrx]

Oh, yikes, that reconstruction. I'm going to wait until more people weigh in on this before I start taking it seriously.

[MLMjp]

To be honest, despite Horner´s past...things... This is actually something new and fresh and not the typical things he has repeated over and over again despite being disproved or suggested before by other paleontologist.

Besides like JOSE_SM has said, this article is not completely Jack Horner´s words. In fact I think the only thing is mentioned about him is that the species name comes from him.

I have to say, I really really like this discovery, while any discovery can always be dissaproved or questioned, for now we can say that we have something new about theropods lip structure. And since I have not been a great fan of lips on big theropods this article makes me happy.

[SpartanSquat]

Im looking some people are not accepting this. Its not Jack Horner. Its only a specie in Horner name.
Better article: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep44942

[Sim]

I don't care about this article because it prominently features jack horner talking about it, and he's spread ridiculousness across the Dino community several times.

The only mention of Jack Horner in the article is that this new Daspletosaurus species is named after him.  Jack Horner doesn't say anything in the article.  As for what Jack Horner has done, he has also made some very good points, like how Nanotyrannus, Stygimoloch and especially Dracorex are likely juveniles of other named dinosaurs.  Additionally, as mentioned in the paper that RolandEden linked to, the reason the species name of this new Daspletosaurus species is "horneri" is:

Horneri, Latinized form of Horner, in honor of Jack Horner, in recognition of his successful field program in the Two Medicine Formation that has recovered many new species of dinosaurs that are critical for our understanding of the palaeobiology of dinosaurs in Laramidia, support in the preparation and curation of these specimens, and to acknowledge that his mentoring efforts have launched many professional scientific careers.

Suffice to say, I think Jack Horner has done more than "spread ridiculousness across the Dino community several times".

[CrypticPrism]

Another reason I don't accept the article is how it keeps comparing dinosaurs to crocodiles. Here's an archosaurs family tree for you to prove just HOW far away crocs are from dinosaurs.



This is a Jp fanboy's wet dream. I renounce my Jack Horner claim, but this is straight up ridiculous.

If you find this one inaccurate then there's one on the Wikipedia page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur

[SpartanSquat]

But at least they are more close to crocodiles that Monitor lizards, an example used to drawn lips on theropods.

[CrypticPrism]

But that's no excuse to compare them to crocodiles for the entire article. It's like comparing a caseasaurus to a mouse.

[SpartanSquat]

If we think the same, its not excuse to place lips all theropods for one who thought. This is more subjective. Not all will think the same

[Minmiminime]

That reconstruction is utterly frightful, it looks so unnatural. At a first glance, I thought it was a skinned version! It's interesting research, but...I'm still very on the fence as to how much can truly be inferred. On a related note, Witmer Lab have been doing a short-video series on what they've discovered about the facial features of T. rex recently; apologies if this is elsewhere, but here's the link: https://youtu.be/xTsVzxtOG7A

[stargatedalek]

So because a multi-ton tracking specialized land based animal has evidence of sensory apparatus in its lips/mouth/gums it must automatically mean they were the same as a several hundred pound (or smaller) aquatic ambush predator.

Sure thing Horner, and this similarly to crocodiles clearly means that Brachiosaurus lived in swamps too. You've always been a big fan of that one.

Seriously, this is a load of nonsense. And look at that god awful reconstruction, the teeth aren't even anchored correctly.

[SpartanSquat]

Mostly they are comparing the soft tissue that looks like a crocodile not they are crocodiles related

[Tyto_Theropod]

I personally find this very interesting. I for one am not a Jack Horner fan at all, but as people have pointed out this only involves him in a minor way. Yes, the reconstruction in this article is terrible, but we can't dismiss the evidence because of that, either. I'm not an expert on this, so I'll leave it to the more experienced people on this forum to let me know whether it's reasonable to infer superficial soft tissue structures from bone texture.
Assuming this is solid evidence, however, I'd still say that it's bad to generalise. At most, this discovery proves that Tyrannosauridae did not have lips. You can't apply it to all Theropods and certainly not to all dinosaurs, as they are a large and very diverse clade.
Arguments aside, the speculation about horny areas on the face is interesting. We know that facial biting occurred in Tyrannosaurids - if this was a regular form of combat then perhaps horny 'armour' and/or thickened facial scales evolved as a response?

I'll finish with a quick PSA: PLEASE, people, can we not have drama over a discovery. Reasonable criticism and well-founded arguments in favour/against is fine, and in fact I'd encourage it. Getting fanatical about it is not, and I've seen far too much of it on the forum lately. Please, DTF, stay special and don't descend to the level of all my other internet hangouts!

[CrypticPrism]

I feel like the (or may not) is the best description of this article.

[stargatedalek]

I'll finish with a quick PSA: PLEASE, people, can we not have drama over a discovery. Reasonable criticism and well-founded arguments in favour/against is fine, and in fact I'd encourage it. Getting fanatical about it is not, and I've seen far too much of it on the forum lately. Please, DTF, stay special and don't descend to the level of all my other internet hangouts!

Just because I wasn't a ray of sunshine doesn't invalidate my argument or mean my skepticism isn't well-founded. This claim is absolutely preposterous for very many reasons.

They openly admit to only bothering to make comparisons to crocodiles. There is not one bit of mention of the animals being of entirely different ecological niche, nor of other animals that display similar patterns. Crocodiles don't have exposed teeth because of these sense organs (are they organs? receptors?) but rather because they're aquatic.

They name-dropped Horner. Doesn't matter if he's barely even quoted, dropping his name is already a bad sign.

The accompanying reconstruction shows a lack of finesse or awareness of the subject. And no, the reconstruction is not the be-all-end-all of a claim, but this clearly isn't bad because it was rushed, but rather because of a lack of understanding of the animals anatomy. Big difference between a rushed sketch being bad and a commissioned reconstruction being inaccurate.

[Patrx]

Given the nature of the paper, the life reconstruction plays a critical role in getting the ideas across, so it really is unfortunate that, lips or no, the reconstruction is erroneous. Lots of folks are going to see this news from various outlets that don't explain the science well, and come away thinking that this image represents a valid collection of hypotheses.

[Takama]

I feel like the (or may not) is the best description of this article.

Indeed, it was my way of getting people to read this so i can see there opinons on the matter.

I for one am just excited for a Second Species of Daspletosaurus. The lip thing however, i was not sure if i should take seraiously or not.

[CrypticPrism]

I mean (or may not) as in this doesen't shed light on theropod lips. (Not as in they didn't have lips, I'm just calling the section on the lips erroneous.)