▲ 775 ▼ tall tails (mander.xyz) submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago (8 children) That's why they're called velociraptors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) I thought they were called like this because of their love of bicycles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Jaws was never their scene. permalink fedilink source parent [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (5 children) Nah, you're thinking of the much more dangerous "acceleraptors". Velociraptors were very different from how they are commonly portrayed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] railwhale@lemmy.nz 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) So then distanceraptors are yet to be discoverd? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) No, much like how brontosaurus was later discovered to be a mix of bones from various individuals, "Distanceraptor" is actually a conflation of multiple Displacemosaurids. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Sorry to break these news to you but in 2015 they discovered that Brontosaurus actually existed, so the "it was a mix of other species bones" is wrong, as much as a fun fact it was 😟 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Thanks for the fascinating read! It seems like the specific taxonomy is still far from certain and needs validation, by the study authors' own admission, but you're absolutely correct that it wasn't the bones of multiple species! I could swear there was another one of those from Germany that was a mishmash. Do you remember what that one was? I'm just a geochemist, not a palaeontologist. But anyway, I look forward to seeing validation studies by others of the 2015 findings! It would be great to see all of that hard work pay off! Do you know of any? I wasn't able to find any from a cursory glance around the internet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago No, sorry, I just remembered the rebuttal of the fun fact, but I'm not into paleontology so I don't know about the rest. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) I thought they were called like this because of their love of bicycles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Jaws was never their scene. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Jaws was never their scene. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (5 children) Nah, you're thinking of the much more dangerous "acceleraptors". Velociraptors were very different from how they are commonly portrayed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] railwhale@lemmy.nz 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) So then distanceraptors are yet to be discoverd? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) No, much like how brontosaurus was later discovered to be a mix of bones from various individuals, "Distanceraptor" is actually a conflation of multiple Displacemosaurids. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Sorry to break these news to you but in 2015 they discovered that Brontosaurus actually existed, so the "it was a mix of other species bones" is wrong, as much as a fun fact it was 😟 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Thanks for the fascinating read! It seems like the specific taxonomy is still far from certain and needs validation, by the study authors' own admission, but you're absolutely correct that it wasn't the bones of multiple species! I could swear there was another one of those from Germany that was a mishmash. Do you remember what that one was? I'm just a geochemist, not a palaeontologist. But anyway, I look forward to seeing validation studies by others of the 2015 findings! It would be great to see all of that hard work pay off! Do you know of any? I wasn't able to find any from a cursory glance around the internet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago No, sorry, I just remembered the rebuttal of the fun fact, but I'm not into paleontology so I don't know about the rest. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] railwhale@lemmy.nz 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) So then distanceraptors are yet to be discoverd? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) No, much like how brontosaurus was later discovered to be a mix of bones from various individuals, "Distanceraptor" is actually a conflation of multiple Displacemosaurids. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Sorry to break these news to you but in 2015 they discovered that Brontosaurus actually existed, so the "it was a mix of other species bones" is wrong, as much as a fun fact it was 😟 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Thanks for the fascinating read! It seems like the specific taxonomy is still far from certain and needs validation, by the study authors' own admission, but you're absolutely correct that it wasn't the bones of multiple species! I could swear there was another one of those from Germany that was a mishmash. Do you remember what that one was? I'm just a geochemist, not a palaeontologist. But anyway, I look forward to seeing validation studies by others of the 2015 findings! It would be great to see all of that hard work pay off! Do you know of any? I wasn't able to find any from a cursory glance around the internet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago No, sorry, I just remembered the rebuttal of the fun fact, but I'm not into paleontology so I don't know about the rest. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) No, much like how brontosaurus was later discovered to be a mix of bones from various individuals, "Distanceraptor" is actually a conflation of multiple Displacemosaurids. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Sorry to break these news to you but in 2015 they discovered that Brontosaurus actually existed, so the "it was a mix of other species bones" is wrong, as much as a fun fact it was 😟 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Thanks for the fascinating read! It seems like the specific taxonomy is still far from certain and needs validation, by the study authors' own admission, but you're absolutely correct that it wasn't the bones of multiple species! I could swear there was another one of those from Germany that was a mishmash. Do you remember what that one was? I'm just a geochemist, not a palaeontologist. But anyway, I look forward to seeing validation studies by others of the 2015 findings! It would be great to see all of that hard work pay off! Do you know of any? I wasn't able to find any from a cursory glance around the internet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago No, sorry, I just remembered the rebuttal of the fun fact, but I'm not into paleontology so I don't know about the rest. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ellohir@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Sorry to break these news to you but in 2015 they discovered that Brontosaurus actually existed, so the "it was a mix of other species bones" is wrong, as much as a fun fact it was 😟 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Thanks for the fascinating read! It seems like the specific taxonomy is still far from certain and needs validation, by the study authors' own admission, but you're absolutely correct that it wasn't the bones of multiple species! I could swear there was another one of those from Germany that was a mishmash. Do you remember what that one was? I'm just a geochemist, not a palaeontologist. But anyway, I look forward to seeing validation studies by others of the 2015 findings! It would be great to see all of that hard work pay off! Do you know of any? I wasn't able to find any from a cursory glance around the internet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago No, sorry, I just remembered the rebuttal of the fun fact, but I'm not into paleontology so I don't know about the rest. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Thanks for the fascinating read! It seems like the specific taxonomy is still far from certain and needs validation, by the study authors' own admission, but you're absolutely correct that it wasn't the bones of multiple species! I could swear there was another one of those from Germany that was a mishmash. Do you remember what that one was? I'm just a geochemist, not a palaeontologist. But anyway, I look forward to seeing validation studies by others of the 2015 findings! It would be great to see all of that hard work pay off! Do you know of any? I wasn't able to find any from a cursory glance around the internet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ellohir@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago No, sorry, I just remembered the rebuttal of the fun fact, but I'm not into paleontology so I don't know about the rest. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ellohir@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago No, sorry, I just remembered the rebuttal of the fun fact, but I'm not into paleontology so I don't know about the rest. permalink fedilink source parent
