They look at related and similarly adapted modern animals when trying to make visualizations of fossils, it's all just guessing.
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
730 points (93.0% liked)
Science Memes
16675 readers
2545 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Also the bones need to be in the right position
That is one cute beaver pic on the left. PM more of your beavers.
This is some real RFK level science here.
It’s sneaking up on creationist levels of ‘science’, like where they argue recreations of Australopithecus are just ‘imagination’ and present their own version of Lucy as as a quadriped, completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence from her skeleton that she could not have walked that way (and also ignoring that we have hundreds of other specimens of her species).
It really seems that lots of people’s conception of these fields is based on very outdated concepts, either unaware or ignoring all the evidence and advancements of the past 50 years or so.
Fossils many times are more than bones and we get actual imprints of their whole tail or other parts of them
I like to imagine T. rex arms were small because that's how they communicated with their octopus rider.
They evolved to be small so they cold more easily fit into the actuator gauntlets that controlled the Gundam.
I don't think dinosaurs were taking x-rays of beaver tails, my dude. Go read a book sometime.
This may seem cheesy or pathetic, and I apologize for that, but I want to say: thank you for catching me off guard with your silly comment and giving me a badly-needed smile and laugh when I'm fucking miserable and in a lot of pain. It's been a while. Seriously, I appreciate it. You're a hoot :)
load more comments
(2 replies)
No. This was created by someone who has no idea how any of this work. Soft tissues leave marks on bones.
Soft tissues can also become fossils under the right conditions. For an example, here is the fossil used for the B. markmitchelli holotype:
It’s the single most detailed and complete soft tissue fossil ever discovered. It took the technician six years to extract and separate the fossil from the surrounding stone. The technician’s name is Mark Mitchell, and the species was named after him.
The articles on that are a fascinating read, thank you!
Don't ruin my dream of fluffy dinosaurs 😭
Smaller dinosaurs might have had fluff, bigger ones probably didn't, like most big mammals. Bigger body, more heat to dissipate, but less relative surface to do so; the square-cube law can be a bit of a bitch, for big (probably at least somewhat) endothermic critters.
Giraffes have hair, though, and woolly mammoths were a thing, so big fluffy dinosaurs might have been a thing, especially in colder climates.
Also, looking at bird behaviour, I wouldn't be surprised if even mostly bald dinos had some colorful feathers on their arms, tail, or head for displaying...
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
So one of the biggest leaps they have made in reconstruction over the last few decades is matching similar bone structure that supports soft tissue. It doesn't work for all soft tissue, but if the beavers tail bones have bumps or other features that hint at supporting extra soft tissue there is a chance.
All the stuff birds have, like inflatable neck sacks and feathers that move with muscles are examples of things we absolutely wouldn't get with fossils that are even better than a beaver tail.
Also, in 40 million years, you can match the beaver fossils to the bones of their still living descendants and find similar features.
Well, now I want to see an artist's rendition of a T. rex doing this:
The Prehistoric Planet documentary series does it with sauropods, it’s pretty sick.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I mean… you can see the processes (bony protrusions on the vertebrae) are long and flat and only transverse (sticking out the sides, not up/down) so… it would be pretty obvious it was a flat tail? Sure maybe they might not get that it wasn’t fuzzy without any fossils if it, and maybe they make it slightly less round, but they’re scientists not idiots. Yeah some has come a long way and some older models sucked sure but it ain’t like we are vibe coding their appearance.
Vibe coded lion:
load more comments
(3 replies)
They always use mammals for that kind of comparison. Show me a reptile with that kind of muscle/fat composition.
The phylogenetic definition of reptile includes birds, so... Penguins, I suppose?
Birds? You mean the last remaining dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs were not reptiles. They were warm blooded, and birds descended from them.
Birds are reptiles. Commonly, we wouldn't say so, but they're in the same clade. The avians are closer related to the crocadilians than the crocs are to other reptiles like the squamates - lizards and snakes.
Also people are fish. You can’t evolve out of your clade.
Hank Green went off about this recently. "Fish" just has no scientific meaning, and there are fish tetrapods.
I don't necessarily disagree, but ultimately there is a problem in classifying "fish" in the modern scientific taxonomy system - it has no good phylum to fit in as its a term that's a bit more broad than that, but not broad enough to make for a kingdom.
Sure, but isn’t the point that what we’d call ‘fish’ back when everything lived in the oceans, like pre-Devonian, the ancestors of all modern life?
We can’t out-evolve our clade, so all land animals are fish? And also we’re all amphibians, and everything directly leading to us? Insects, plants, and fungi are separate, but we’re technically fish?
Or am i misunderstanding that?
(e: if there are no ‘fish tetrapods’, where did tetrapods come from?)
Yeah, I'm not really arguing for or against the word fish technically fitting all land animals. I think that using it that way showcases the problem of trying to fit common terminology like "fish" into the scientific taxonomic system. The definition of fish has no use in that context.
Also, there are fish which are also arguably tetrapods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii
That’s fair. Honestly, all of taxonomy is just lines we draw, and all of evolution is really a fuzzy gradient. We can’t even figure out where the line for ‘human’ begins, because that’s also a meaningless term, really.
So the fact that we’re fish is as meaningful (or meaningless) as the fact that we’re human.
(And thanks for the link! That’s a cool, uh, ‘fish’.)
Yeah, this is the distinction I'm trying to draw between "common" and "scientific" terminology. Scientific taxonomy is based on evolutionary history, rather than just superficial traits like "has gills, fins, and lives mostly in water."
One thing I wouldn't mind AI to do, train a model with standardised data like this, and have it match the reconstruction. After that it can use common and less common reconstructions. After that try to map as much info from a dinosaur fossil to said standardised data structure and generate possible reconstruction for said dinosaur
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›