Squirtops

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@AndrejSpiridon4 This individual was, the average defenitely not.

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@Doshaguma3000HQ As a kid i loved this doc, it's score especially, i still do. As an adult it's sad just how atrocious and misleading it was at rapresenting evolution, it was made in 2005 yet the narration could be from the 50s. It brought a greater deal of attention to the paleozoic, at least.

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@MDPetraglia They weren't our ancestors at all, they split from H.erectus and lived isolated, even overlapping in time and place with us.

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@ReysukaXO @TheBioBob If you've had experiences of that kind i'm sorry, but, in this case, abusing you is calling you out on a mistake? T.rex is part of it's own lineage of theropods, peacocks are birds. Even if you have to simplify you can't say what you wrote in that post, it's just factually wrong

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@Sharking_Around @PalaeoE I'm not referring to that, but to the individual itself, which is often used for infographics even though it doesn't rapresent the likely average size of the taxon.

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@Twomato1 You forgot that it has the IQ of a chimpazee

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@JoschuaKnuppe @tylerstoneart I know, i think the same, i already said what gets me the most is that there was only one baryonychine, not two, which would have been more interesting and exciting.

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@MbvBaryonix Everything is Scrotum umanum.

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@derpyman1995 @RickRaptor105 @archaeoraptor No skin was added, because that's how most paleoartists who know the anatomy of these animals draw it. Disregarding it is like drawing a person without skin on the shoulders, neck and head.

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@tylerstoneart @JoschuaKnuppe You're right.
What saddens more ,actually, is the "loss" of biodiversity of the Elrhaz formation. The prospect of two, distinct, giant baryonychines in the same ecosystem was exciting. (I put loss between quotation marks because the animals we have could be counted on one hand.)

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@FebesGereto @JoschuaKnuppe @GET_AWAY_TRIKE I wouldn't call it's reconstructions inaccurate, we have a general idea of therizinosaurid anatomy and the best we can do is applying them to fragmentary members. Of course they cannot be 100% true, but based on what we know, not far at all

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@tylerstoneart @JoschuaKnuppe It's become an iconic name to people, and most of them aren't really educated about science anyway.
I kind of agree actually, because "Suchomimus" is a remarkably complete skeleton while Cristatusaurus is a couple jaw bits and dorsals. But yeah, end of the day it's just a name.

[Squirtops @oldroot4]

@BiggoBuggo Than you haven't looked hard enough, trust me.