4 ms·
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 diffe
by popsie 5y ago
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 https://youtu.be/8TPPFcZpCbA)
- msrenee 5y agoWhy, when trying to determine what an ancient reptile looked like, would you use mammal species for all your references? Just in my experience, reptiles tend to have fat deposits in different configurations to mammals.
- popsie 5y agoSince 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.
- zabzonk 5y ago> 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 5y agoActually I’m surprised to see anything from the daily Mail posted here. I would have guessed it was on a block list.
- zabzonk 5y agoWell, 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.
- the_only_law 5y agoIt may not be true, but I swear there’s been an uptick in submissions from tabloid-like sites in the past year.