Trustme

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@dino_magenta Sorry, I meant to refer to the assumption of Theropods not having beak-like faces.

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@dino_magenta Don't worry, it's the one about the conition in Theropods.

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

Probably my favourite reconstruction of Dilong so far, looks very Proceratosaurid - esque.

Others reconstructions either "correct" the nose or keep the back of the skull too crushed.

[Julian P / Blame @SirBlameson]

Skull reconstruction of Dilong paradoxus, based on specimen IVPP V14243

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

This right here is how you do Ornithischian premaxillary teeth

[Tess Gallagher🦕(@tessasaurus.bsky.social) @Tessasaurus_rex]

Thescelosaurus

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@TM9380 @ddinodan @TomHoltzPaleo I explicitly didn't ask if it was considered invalid.

I asked if it was officially invalidated in some way.

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@saltsmellyfa @SpahnCameron Maybe it's more accurate to call them gums (?)

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@saltsmellyfa @SpahnCameron I do not actually think this is a reconstruction with lower lips. (Which is likely what he is talking about)

It looks as if it has a layer of thick skin that is pierced by the upper tooth row.

So this is completely different from lizard-like lips and current reconstructions.

[Ｒｅｇｅｎｔａｕｃｈｅｒ @Regentaucher1]

@SpahnCameron The holes seem to individually tailored to one upper tooth each, kind of like the holes some alligators inflict on them self today.
Does this imply theropods had some sort of soft keratin around their lower jaw that was to be deliberately penetrated by the growing upper teeth?!

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@telescopteryx "Shrinkwrap" brainrot.

I wouldn't mind it so much if people treated this the same way they treat giant purely speculative David Peteresque soft tissue crests, and not like a conservative way to reconstruct the animal.

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@Evoincarnate @TheUnfunnyAnzu I would still assume there is a large range of what is reasonably possible, but I admittedly was speaking about animal reconstructions in general, not specifically sharks or megalodon.

I'm sure there is plenty of variation and things may get whacky when reaching certain sizes.

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@Evoincarnate @TheUnfunnyAnzu Making the assumption that it's anatomy can be filled in from it's relatives is active speculation and assumption making just as much as assuming some unique blend of characters.

I just don't know why people get so attached to obviously highly speculative designs.

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@Evoincarnate @TheUnfunnyAnzu To be fair in the case of animals where all of the anatomy is inferred from their relatives, there is no reason to assume that the most conservative reconstruction is somehow the "most likely".

There is probably a massive range of reasonable reconstructions, no?

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@TheUnfunnyAnzu @Evoincarnate Yes, but yo have no reason to treat them as competing designs if one is clearly not true to the animal.

An definitively incorrect reconstruction is ultimately just a ficional animal separate from the real thing and not real to any extent.

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@Titanlizard_Art

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@DanPalaeon1 Neovenator?
Should have been Nasovenator or Schnozovenator.

[Brontops @Brontops_]

I was _so wrong_, and I'm happy with that. This specimen is NOT privately owned, but is curated and exhibited at the Geological Museum of the Sun Yat-Sen University . https://t.co/6Mu13Yleay

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@MbvBaryonix @Velocir77620984 @Tessasaurus_rex it's meaningful to call them feathers, since any random scale-like structure may be just slightly phylogenetically closer to feathers than to ancestral scales, making them technically "protofeathers" despite not any meaningfully feather-like features. 2/2

[Trustme @Ovicephalus]

@MbvBaryonix @Velocir77620984 @Tessasaurus_rex Either way, I guess my point is that if we consider Haolong spines (which are very much scale like) feathers we are bordering on such a diluted definition that it becomes impossible to differentiate feathers and scales at all.

Just because they may be homologous doesn't mean 1/2