[HN Gopher] What modern animals would look like if we drew them ...
___________________________________________________________________
What modern animals would look like if we drew them in the same way
as dinosaurs
Author : andyxor
Score : 153 points
Date : 2021-07-13 03:33 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dailymail.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dailymail.co.uk)
| popsie wrote:
| This is wildly inaccurate to the point that I would consider
| asking for this list to be taken down.
|
| We know a lot about how the muscles sits on bone, how different
| bone density and shapes affect strength and thus possible uses.
| We can also draw a lot from reptiles and living dinosaurs (birds)
| by looking at analogous structures that are widely present in
| existing animals.
|
| This sort of news has been going around the Brazilian internet
| for quite a while to the point that a fairly well known
| paleontologist and science communication showed the process of
| how this reconstruction would be made (video, in portuguese:
| https://youtu.be/8TPPFcZpCbA)
| zabzonk wrote:
| > This is wildly inaccurate to the point that I would consider
| asking for this list to be taken down.
|
| It's the Daily Mail - wild inaccuracy goes without saying.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Actually I'm surprised to see anything from the daily Mail
| posted here. I would have guessed it was on a block list.
| the_only_law wrote:
| It may not be true, but I swear there's been an uptick in
| submissions from tabloid-like sites in the past year.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Well, let's not go nuts. It is almost certainly the worst
| newspaper in the world, read only by the racist tubs of
| lard seen capering around Wembley at the weekend. But
| censorship is even worse.
| popsie wrote:
| Since there's a hippo in the article as well, here are some
| major points:
|
| - From the teeth shape and abrasion patterns we can tell that
| this was a herbivorous animal.
|
| - Muscle attachment points intm the jaw and huge concave
| regions suggests large and powerful jaw muscles, so the hollow
| skinny picture in the article is not viable.
|
| - Being a herbivore with powerful jaw muscles, this animal
| would need to chew on food a lot. Without cheeks, food would
| fall out as the animal chews, so it clearly has cheeks.
|
| - Eyew need to fit in the ocular orbit, so they're not tint
| dots, they're large eyes.
|
| - if we knew any surviving mammal, we would know this animal
| probably had eyelids (all mammals do).
|
| - This head is huge and heavy, so we'll need a bunch of muscles
| to keep it up, so this animal has a chunky neck as well.
|
| You can see what the reconstruction would look like with this
| info at ~40 minutes into the video.
| obloid wrote:
| These images are from the book "All Yesterdays: Unique and
| Speculative Views of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Animals"
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Yesterdays
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| Related podcast/article.
|
| https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-a...
| everdrive wrote:
| >A scary looking baboon re-imagined from its skeleton - it
| appears to have a dinosaur-like tail
|
| Baboons are terrifying in any context.
| danellis wrote:
| They're quite enjoyable in the context of being in a car with
| the windows rolled up.
| baboonincar wrote:
| Like INSIDE the car? That sounds terrifying!
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| I know it's the Daily Mail so it goes with the territory, but
| that website is truly obnoxious on mobile. It's a masterclass in
| why having multiple content-covering boxes which are hard to
| dismiss is a stupid idea.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Is this just meant to be silly for the fun of it? Or is it meant
| to suggest our real extrapolations are probably as ridiculous as
| these things are?
|
| If we have even a single mud impression somehere, and we do, then
| this implication is DailyMail, I mean garbage.
|
| Similarly, unless you take an artist who currently draws
| dinosaurs to the best of their ability with all current
| anatomical understanding, and THEY produce these drawings from a
| monkey etc, then again, DailyMail, I mean garbage.
|
| "These drawings I made are stupid" on no way proves that
| "therefor those drawings you made are stupid."
| yakubin wrote:
| _> He believes Hollywood is to blame for giving dinosaurs their
| skeletal 'monster' image._
|
| I don't think most dinosaurs are seen as monsters. When it comes
| to public relations "monsters", I think it's mostly T-Rex, and
| usually it isn't portrayed as skeletal. Depictions of most
| dinosaurs make them look cute.
| edflsafoiewq wrote:
| It's older than Hollywood. Early attempts to rationalize
| geological time with Genesis located dinosaurs in a pre-Adamic
| world of eternal darkness.
|
| Really interesting article about this:
|
| Terrible lizards and the wrath of God: How 19th century
| Christianity and Romanticism affected visual representations of
| dinosaurs and our perceptions of the ancient world:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20200905194215/https://web.stanf...
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| That certainly squares with H.P. Lovecraft's "Antediluvian
| horrors".
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Pagan big reptiles weren't nice either, were they? Tiamat,
| Nidhogg, Jormungandr, Hydra, Fafnir.
| 93po wrote:
| Would be more accurate if it was just titled "Mammals look weird
| if we draw them as if they were reptiles instead".
| hprotagonist wrote:
| the classic "we can't prove they weren't huge fatbirds":
| https://coelasquid.tumblr.com/post/111317780763/nebu-kuro
| bitwize wrote:
| I'm not sure that being eaten by a giant toothed finch would be
| any less scary than being eaten by the lizard-thing we're used
| to.
| genericone wrote:
| Related/Unrelated:
| https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/1418450360/2014/02/1418...
| renewiltord wrote:
| Surely this T-Rex would spontaneously combust from the heat
| retention.
| yorwba wrote:
| I didn't see the artist's website linked in the article, so here
| it is: http://cmkosemen.com/
| juliushuijnk wrote:
| Eons video about the history of how dinosaurs have been drawn,
| including the mistakes and why they were made:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDnQmBFxIfE
| NotSwift wrote:
| One point that most illustration of the old dinosaurs probably
| get wrong is the lack of feathers. After all, all current
| dinosaurs have feathers (Yes birds are technically dinosaurs) and
| it seems reasonable to assume that some of their ancestors had
| them too. Unfortunately, unlike bones, feathers do not fossilize
| really well, so we cannot easily determine which species had
| them. The most likely reason dinosaurs developed feathers is
| thermal insulation, just like why mammals developed hair.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| We have enough fossils of "things that don't fossilize well"
| that if dinosaurs were feathered by default we'd know about it.
| handrous wrote:
| Last I checked back in on my childhood obsession of
| paleontology, consensus was that a whole lot more theropods
| were at least partially feathered, at least at _some_ life
| stages, than previously thought, including some of the big
| ones, but there 's not evidence that many other categories of
| dinosaur were feathered.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| AFAIK that's still correct.
|
| The dinosaurs from which birds are descended are thought to
| have feathers or something similar, in some case or at some
| stages of life. But that's a really long way from being the
| default or even a sizeable enough majority that one could
| say "the dinosaurs had feathers" as a generalization and do
| so with a straight face.
| Cd00d wrote:
| My kids have a dinosaur book, and I was blown away at the
| difference in portrayal of the velociraptor compared to what
| was in the original Jurassic Park film. Super bird-like now.
|
| https://www.dkfindout.com/us/dinosaurs-and-prehistoric-life/...
| cwmma wrote:
| that being said there is a pretty good chance a lot of the
| bigger dinosaurs (e.g. t. rex) probably did not have many
| feathers similar to how rhinos, elephants and other large
| mammals don't (but hey mammoths did so so it's probably not
| none)
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| ...don't have fur, I think you mean?
| autokad wrote:
| > "After all, all current dinosaurs have feathers"
|
| that's selection bias. only the avian 'dinosaurs' survived, but
| calling them dinosaurs would be like calling humans rodents.
| It's not like birds existed back then.
|
| There seems to be a rush to try and put feathers on everything.
| We are finding some amazing specimens that are giving us
| amazing detail, such as the ankylosaur found in Canada. Yup,
| covered in scales and hard armor.
|
| Now we got this T-rex crazed idea to put feathers all over
| them. It sort of reminds me of the 1990s who tried to put t-rex
| as scavengers / non predators because of 1 solitary data point.
| the data strongly suggests they were scaled (we found skin
| impressions of t-rex, they had scales). So now they are trying
| to say 'oh well maybe they had feathers elsewhere, or were
| covered in feathers when young'. sheesh.
|
| > "Unfortunately, unlike bones, feathers do not fossilize
| really well"
|
| if a leaf can be fossilized, I imagine so can a feather.
| NotSwift wrote:
| Dinosaurs are only one of the many groups of reptiles that
| have ever existed. It is normal use in biology to classify
| species in the same group as the group of their ancestor
| species. So, whether you like it or not, humans are mammals
| and primates. There really are no sound biological reasons to
| exclude birds from belonging to the group of dinosaurs.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| >only the avian 'dinosaurs' survived, but calling them
| dinosaurs would be like calling humans rodents.
|
| No, humans did not evolve from rodents. It's more like
| calling humans primates.
|
| >It's not like birds existed back then.
|
| Back when? There were birds before the other dinosaurs went
| extinct, so concurrently with T-Rex.
| autokad wrote:
| > "No, humans did not evolve from rodents. It's more like
| calling humans primates."
|
| Its my understanding humans evolved from a rodent like
| creature that existed during the time of the dinosaurs.
| primates did not exist then.
|
| also, humans did not evolve from primates. humans are
| primates.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| >Its my understanding humans evolved from a rodent like
| creature that existed during the time of the dinosaurs.
| primates did not exist then.
|
| Our ancestors might at some point have been rodent-like,
| in the sense that they looked somewhat like rodents (or
| rather, some rodents still look like them, as the rodents
| also evolved from the same ancestor). But they weren't
| rodents, and they didn't have the incisors that
| characterize rodents.
|
| >also, humans did not evolve from primates. humans are
| primates
|
| Yes, we evolved from primates, and thus still are
| primates, like how birds still are dinosaurs.
| autokad wrote:
| birds are NOT dinosours. they are descended from them. as
| far as I know, there were no birds during their time.
| abc_lisper wrote:
| Hmm.. That's not true. There were birds then. And a lot
| of dinosaurs that look like birds. https://twitter.com/se
| rpenillus/status/1226553777983016960?s...
|
| Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-13 23:02 UTC)