this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
719 points (97.1% liked)

Science Memes

11091 readers
892 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

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. 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

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I remember someone mentioned online that the reconstruction of animals are more complicated than just tracing the bone line.

I am very interested if some experts are willing to tell us more.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Since none chimed in (in the past 6 minutes) , I, an idiot, will share what I think I know. When reconstructing the faces of people from a skull, either with clay or software, they model the various tissues--muscles, fat, skin, etc according to models based on samples. How they would do this for a creature that isn't very like any current living creature I don't know. It is probably educated guesswork?

I just read an article on this process for a neanderthal and in that particular instance they used data from humans since I guess it was close enough.

But, for example (referencing a recent meme) how do they know spinosaur had a sail and not a hump back and neck muscles like a buffalo?? Seriously though I'm sure they can tell which bones have attachment points, how much force they can withstand, etc.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago

Over the last few decades there have been massive improvements on telling which bones have attachment points for muscles and hints at how strong the muscles are likely to be, but it takes a long time to replace all of the existing artwork with newer and more accurate artwork.

Even with improvements to the muscle structure, any part of the body that has fatty buildup like breasts would be missed without soft tissues being preserved. I am fairly certain that a hippos nose and lip area wouldn't have enough detail to reconstruct accurately. Heck, tyrannosaurs most likely had lips to cover their teeth, but that is based on other animals with similar teeth all having lips to protect the teeth from dryness and rot that doesn't apply to crocodiles who live in a very wet environment.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

As another idiot, there is a difference between tusks and teeth. They are different, tusks don't contain enamel for example and I think aliens could also determine this difference. It's rare for teeth to stick out like in the reconstruction.

They would also be able to determine that hippos can open their mouth extremely wide. Making it more likely for the long "fangs" to be at least partially covered and not exposed like the tusks of elephants.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Often, dinosaurs are depicted with mouths showing their tooth. This is debated and more and more scientists think they had closed mouths, like most animals today.

Other than that, the proposition of fat is very hard to reconstruct. Reconstructing a hippo you would have other mammals in mind and reconstructing dinosaurs, scientists take reptiles but they could as well take birds so this is a big question.

For context: I'm an idiot too

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

They can get some idea from the bones of muscle attachment points and how strong of a muscle would have been attached.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Actually this is how we've been reconstructing dinosaurs. They're probably all very wrong.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

I want to believe…

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Then you have physcs and how much weight the bones can lift before breaking.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

We need to bring back the chonkosaurs

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

T. rex

T. rex may have had lips, for example

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Lusty Cretaceous Maid

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I dont care how scientifically accurate Dino's with bird feathers are, they will never be as cool as the Jurassic park dino of my childhood

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

IIRC the current theory is that many (likely most) had feathers but few of the large ones had actual wings beyond just a row of longer feathers on the forearms. The bodily structures that allow flight are absent on the vast majority of dinosaurs so it's thought they mostly used their arm feathers as rudders for better control when running (which the ostrich and other large flightless birds still use). However, it is thought that some smaller species likely did have wings which they used to glide much like a flying squirrel. Eventually they evolved larger chest muscles and a keel for attaching said large muscles, and at that point you could reasonably just call them birds, which are to this day a subset of dinosaurs.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Spoken like someone who thinks Pluto should still be considered a Planet.

But you are right, Jurassic Park would be a completely different movie if Genaro was eaten my something that looked like an oversized quail.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Pluto will forever be a planet in our hearts...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

It'll always be a planet in our hearts.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

And what about Ceres and Eris then? Planets too?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yup!

Now, whether or not they meet a specific criteria for a specific standard used in a scientific field is not in debate. Obviously, the standard for what defines a planet in a given field of study is applicable in that field.

However, for the rest of us, we don't have to use that standard. See, using a language for something lile science is filled with this kind of thing when you use a living language that's why Latin is so often the default for situations where you need fixed definitions. Otherwise, you deal with this issue constantly.

Though, tbh, even that's no certain protection because people will borrow words, or misuse them just because we're essentially a bunch of parrots playing with sounds sometimes. Lol at what happened with words like idiot or moron. They used to have a fixed, certain meaning with a standard used to apply them. Now they're just insults.

The "planets" have existed in the public awareness with a much looser definition than what is used in scientific fields. Pretty much anything can be a planet in colloquial usage, so long as it orbits the sun. Now, I believe most people would insist on a lower size threshold where something is no longer a planet, but some other term. The problem is that there's not a consensus on that lower limit.

With ceres and eris in specific, most people that are aware they exist are gong to be into "space" in some way, maybe even professionally. That makes the usage of planet for them less common than for Pluto, but the more casual the interest in such things, the more likely they are to get lumped in as "the 10th planet" or 10th and 11th, depending on who is saying things.

But, for casual conversation, I'd say that all three are planets. I'd have to look up the standards again because I'm fucking old, but I would also be just fine with someone calling them dwarf planets, or planetoids, or whatever.

Seriously. Until someone is just outright ignoring common usage and making up definitions nobody else uses, this kind of thing is just part of the fun of being monkeys that make complex sounds. None of us are obligated to use jargon definitions in casual settings, and trying to force that is not only pointless, it's sometimes rude.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Everything's a planet!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's a while ago. Now they're probably pretty accurate.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They might look cute and cuddly, but hippos are freaking mean. And they hold grudges longer than a snubbed karen-in-law

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I mean, the alien reconstruction is like looking into the soul of the hippo

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Yes, it captures the essence of the animal perfectly right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Alien Picture of Dorian Hippo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They are also faster than they look.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I dunno, I think aliens would be smarter than that and we’re projecting our history of being overly simplistic on our dino reconstruction. Why put it on the aliens? It’s already an us issue.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because the post is not about aliens. It's about people. Aliens serve here to help you see the problem from the outside, to not use what you know about the animal. It's supposed to show you the reflection of our way of thinking about fossils.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uh oh... Looks like SOME alien got offended...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I am and I am!

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Did you know the bite force of a hippo is 1820 psi? For comparison, the bite force of a lion is 650 psi, which could easily crush your rib cage as it can only withstand 630 pounds of force.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine a hydrolic press pushing a coke can through your leg.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

[...] which could easily crush your rib cage as it can only withstand 630 pounds of force.

...How is this known? Also is that calculated with the skin/muscle/connective tissue buffer in mind? If so, that honestly raises even more questions...

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There is a method of execution known as pressing, which was the crushing of someone under immense weight. One famous example occurred during the Salem witch trials where a man, not a woman, got so sick of salems bullshit that he refused to talk when questioned and so the town tried to get a confession out of him by stacking rocks on top of him, with the only response being "more weight". He eventually died from the crushing pressure of the rocks. Another famouse example involves an elephant crushing a person, though it was common to crush the limbs then the head.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Honestly, knowing what I know about the last slide, it might as well be the middle slide.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How it looks: This creature would use it’s oversized teeth to impale it’s prey and it’s massive muscles gives it a crushing bite.

The truth: I eata da plant

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The truth: I eata da plant and also indiscriminately murder everyone who comes too close.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And then eat the meat sometimes

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They only eat meat that's already been killed – the perfect flexitarians

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

But since they indiscriminately kill whatever is close enough, they may supply themselves with said "meat that's already been killed"

load more comments
view more: next ›