studioempirah

[studioempirah]

Synthesis

Coach’s note:

This specific argument is one that will change over time I believe, no matter how confident we are in its conclusion. So, take everything with a grain of salt even thought there is a lot of evidence for it.

The debate for lips on dinosaurs has been hotly contested for a while now. The New York Times article even states:

“They formed a sort of Venetian mask that revealed the patterns covering just about every part of the face but the eyes and the nose. From the imprints on the skull, they were able to reconstruct the types of soft tissue covering the face.

Presently, paleontologists do not have good samples of fossilized facial skin in carnivorous dinosaurs, most likely because the face is one of the first parts of a dinosaur to get scavenged or eroded once it died”

However, the discussion has gotten quieter and quieter over the years. Mainly because each scientific discovery that we end up making slowly but surely puts the topic to rest. Concerning T. Rex, we’ve seen evidence that its snout was rigid; hard like that of a crocodile. Which meant it had hypersensitive nerve endings that helped it sense prey and kill it. Which would lead scientists to believe that it had no lips. Its teeth must’ve been sticking out they said. But that argument, while somewhat still interesting, was succeeded by new discoveries that involved the teeth specifically, not just the skull itself.

The enamel, as we’ve found, was far too preserved for the previous argument to hold a lot of water. The condition of the enamel would be much more deteriorated if lips simply weren’t covering the teeth. Not to mention the notion of the tyrannosaur’s teeth size being too big to fully fit in its mouth, was already being questioned. “Additionally, the team compared skull lengths and tooth sizes of more than 20 fossilized theropod dinosaurs and several other lizard species. They found that, like the Komodo dragon, the T. rex could seemingly fit its chompers behind a lipped mouth” according to the Smithsonian. This lip evidence was a great supporting piece to the “teeth inside mouth” argument. My point is, that both articles used in these blogs, choose to use clear cut scientific evidence and fact (logos) to explain their findings. Which is scientific method at its finest.

But one of these arguments was made at a time where the evidence or mindsets weren’t nearly as seasoned as they would be 6 or so years in the future. I believe that, while both using interesting backing for their arguments, the more recent article, and therefore finding (supporting lips) just makes much more sense than the other. The first article supporting no lips on T. Rex seems to confuse traits of other animals that, while related to dinosaurs, simply have different biological niches that require them to evolve specific traits seperate from tyrannosauridae. The attempt at logic is better organized and presented with the argument supporting lips. It just makes sense for an animal with these specific behavioral traits to maintain lips around their teeth, protecting its main weapon for defense and offense from disease and parasites. If this wasn’t the case, its success as a species wouldn’t have been as long lasting. Using rhetoric when it comes to purely logic is somewhat hard for certain subjects.

At some point, facts and logic will put down 1 of 2 arguments; it’s not nearly as nebulous as philosophical debates or moral debates. Those are subject to, well, subjectivity for the most part, regardless of how I feel about moral objectivity. When it’s purely logos, one argument will eventually have to start using more mental gymnastics (pathos or ethos) to justify their argument. That is unless they concede and side with the more logical side. Of course, assuming that side has too much evidence to ignore. This is mainly true with this specific case, however I can imagine would be different if both sides had so much evidence that a debate could last substantially longer. This is especially true when the topics themselves are attempting to blend in factual evidence with moral rhetoric.

Lots of perceived scientific issues; like let’s say abortion, or maybe whether there is a God, are things that can probably be debated about until the end of time. Luckily, morals typically aren’t involved in paleontology. In a way, it’s an escape from the rest of human discourse. Only dealing with what is right in front of you. The animal. The bone. The sediment. And what it means. Simple and clean. God knows we need that.

[studioempirah]

#2

For argument’s sake, this one New York Times Article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/science/tyrannosaurs-face-dinosaur.html) saying otherwise; that T. Rex had no lips and was similar to modern day crocodiles in the sense that it had “super sensitive skin” lined along the snout so that it can sense prey easier. It’s said this trait would’ve aided their hunting behaviors, giving them all the best possible attributes to help them gain the highest evolutionary advantage in their regions. “By comparing the nerve holes in the tyrannosaurs with that of present-day crocodiles, the team speculates that the tyrannosaurs would have used their heightened senses to detect the temperatures of their nests, tend to their eggs and may have used their sensitive snouts to nuzzle their mates.” Trying to be as factual as possible, which within itself is persuasive.

Keep in mind, this is old. From 2017 in fact. While I’m sure there are still some who think this 100%, this has been proven somewhat mute in some aspects. Tyrannosaurus Rex would have had no reason to develop these adaptations. Unlike crocodiles, T. rex didn’t live in lakes or water. It didn’t ambush prey under the cover of murky bodies of water. Crocodiles need this adaptation to survive in the specific aquatic conditions they live in. Not to mention the fact that since these are strictly lizards, crocodiles and alligators are simply no where near as powerful or agile as a tyrannosaurus is. So they need those traits to combat their faults; what they lack. T. Rex was a terrestrial powerhouse, similar to let’s say, the modern day bear in terms of niche I believe. It has all it needs to catch prey; powerful bite, binocular vision, general strength, great sense of smell. It really didn’t need these nerve endings on its snout to do anything it couldn’t already do with the gifts God already have it. Not to say T. Rex didn’t have a sensitive snout that could pick up on temperature; but the comparison to crocodiles seems a little bit too forward.

The article tries its best to be factual, but in my opinion, it seems to have an aura of bias attached to it. Now I love lizard like dinosaurs as much as the next guy, but sometimes these findings seemingly try to turn our modern day thinking of dinosaurs around into “what if they were actually more lizard like, similar to how we saw them before?”. These dinosaur discoveries tend to give ammunition to people who don’t actually care about science, and more so care about the “cool factor” of their prehistoric monsters. Obviously this is just thinking out loud. Me essentially projecting. Either way, the use of logos here is attempted, but rooted in an older way of seeing these animals. Nonetheless, it’s an interesting rebuttal to the more progressive outlook that dinosaurs were more similar to birds. Both arguments actually argue that the lizard like portrayals of yesteryear don’t have to vanish in their redirect. Surprises continue to happen in this field even with its 200 year history on full display. So don’t be surprised if something rocks the boat yet again.

[studioempirah]

#1

For most of our perception of dinosaurs, their relation to lizards has typically been their most heightened trait. Up until the 1970’s or so, dinosaurs largely resembled giant lizards. Scaley, somewhat slow moving, not extraordinarily intelligent. For this reason, lips were not necessarily a point of concern back in the day. The easy solution was to look at modern day lizards, and apply their traits to blank spaces on the extinct ancestors. But how valid was this? Did it produce any traits that we still actually agree with? And where am I going with this? Well, the act of applying modern day attributes to animals of the past, is quite hit or miss. Ironically, except for lips. Specifically on T. Rex. According to many articles, one of them being (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/t-rex-had-lips-that-concealed-its-teeth-study-says-180981914/), there’s is much evidence to support the notion that the enamel of T Rex’s teeth are far too preserved and abundant than it would have been if its teeth were exposed. According to this article,

“They realized that the tooth’s enamel lacked significant wear—had the dinosaur’s tooth been exposed to dry air in a lip-free mouth, its enamel would have been more degraded, scientists say.

After all, crocodilian teeth suffer lots of damage due to their lack of protection from lip-like tissue”.

It was thought that its teeth were too big for them to be concealed in its mouth, and thus should be sticking out similar to how they are in Jurassic park. This is where the lizard like traits from the past come in handy; this lip trait is actually very common in lizards. Like Komodo dragons for instance. You can’t really see them too well with the naked eye. But they’re similar to how they were with theropod Dinosaurs; larger than we’d expect them to be. If Komodo dragons were extinct and we found fossils of them, it’s fairly likely that for an unknown amount of time, we’d expect their teeth to be very visible on the outside. Poking out, somewhat confused on where to go that won’t puncture the animal itself. But in terms of self preservation itself, lips over these teeth make perfect sense. It protects them from being subjected to disease, and tooth decay. Which is paramount in deciding whether a giant animal like T. rex is successful. This is fairly old news, but there are always detractors who are quick to refuse such new information. This article uses purely logic and evidence to guide us through its ideas, but of course is a surface level viewpoint. If it was the actual paper itself, which is somewhat hard to get a hold of in my experience, it would go far deeper into it I believe. But this is good for now. Luckily there is no emotion attached to the information displayed here, purely logic. Logos. Very sharp. It’s easier to convince people when you’re straight about it. Science is a field that typically shouldn’t be mixed in with human emotional stipulation, but there are some exceptions…anyways, dinosaurs? Mm, yes.

One last thing, bias against Jurassic park is strangely obnoxious to me now as an adult. This film was actually fairly accurate back in 1993, with liberties only taken really on the Dilo, and the naming of what should be Deinonychus, or even Velociraptor Antiropus. Instead being the plain “velociraptor” name, which would lead many to believe this was actually velociraptor Mongoliensis. That confusion would then lead the very filmmakers themselves to mistakenly label the raptors as mongoliensis in the canon. Apart from simple design choices for the sake of style, Jurassic Park was a somewhat safe, but visionary and stylistic forward thinking portrayal of Dinosaurs in the 90s. Bias for ultra bird looking dinosaurs, and ultra lizard like dinosaurs, is a constant in this field.

[studioempirah]

New Blog Posts!

It’s been 5 years since I used this account. I believe I was 15 last time I used it. Now I’m 20, and studying geology at a university. So things have changed. But, the thing that hasn’t changed is my love for dinosaurs! So over the next weeks or so, you’ll be hearing from me about a certain topic: lips on theropods. It’s a paper I’m doing. Hope you enjoy whatever I have to offer!

[studioempirah]

thicc

[studioempirah]

Who don’t believe in anything

No offense to Kong, but damn King Ghidorah seems so OP and I LOVE IT. Heck, even Godzilla needs to team up with humans (and probably Mothra) just to take down this glorious bastard.

[studioempirah]

Gamera 3: Revenge of Iris (1999)

[studioempirah]

Kaiju Monster March Day 8 - Biollante

[studioempirah]

Rodan is SCREAMING FOR VENGEANCE!

I remade one of my old drawings, which makes a reference to the greatest heavy metal band ever, Judas Priest! combining my two favourite things, Metal and Monsters

[studioempirah]

Heads up! Toho has revealed the designs for Chibi Mothra and Chibi Anguirus! They’ll be in the new book “Nakayoshi Chibi Godzilla” hitting the shelves this May!

This little cartoon also dropped today… it’s a movie theater PSA that runs before the film! https://youtu.be/o32YSV5bzxA

[studioempirah]

megafriends

[studioempirah]

[studioempirah]

Day 1- Godzilla

Didn’t know Monster March was a thing but here’s a quick Goji before I get too sleepy to do anything

[studioempirah]

Dinosaurs Attack! vs. Mars Attacks (2015)

These 9 crossover cards were part of the Kickstarter event for Mars Attacks: Occupation.

I need to thank Smith W over on the Monster Island Buddies Discord for remembering about my lifelong obsession with the original 1988 Dinosaurs Attack! set and making me aware of these cards… plus gamergabe for helping me find a good deal on them!

[studioempirah]

[studioempirah]

[studioempirah]

Man, I totally forgot to post these!

One of the reasons I started doing these pixel art pieces in the first place was because I specifically made them to be Perler bead sprites, even limiting myself to the colors of the beads (or a close approximation thereof). I’ve found out about new colors since I started doing these, and with each sprite I’d make, I’d have a bit more color choices and possibilities. Thus, I took another crack at making a Godzilla 1989 and SpaceGodzilla. (I ran out of midnight beads, so I can’t make the Trendmasters bead sprite yet.)

AND, all three are available on TeePublic!

Godzilla 1989

SpaceGodzilla

Trendmasters SpaceG (***for a limited time***)