The T. rex Lip Debate is Over!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 มี.ค. 2023
- Finally, a paper looking at multiple lines of evidence regarding dinosaur lips is out, and seems pretty conclusive!
Read the Paper here: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
It's dangerous to go alone, check out our Links!
Patreon: www.patreon.com/raptorchatter
Twitter: raptor_chatter
Redbubble: www.redbubble.com/people/RaptorChatter/shop
Discord: / discord - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![พรากรัก - เต้ย อภิวัฒน์ [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ShT2ltn8GBE/mqdefault.jpg)
I am not gonna lie to you, birds DO have lips, but not at the front of their mouths because their dentary and maxilla are covered in keratin. They still have lips in the corners of their mouths and as long as we don't get something that contradicts it, I'm gonna avidly keep giving non-avian dinosaurs bird-like rictuses. Bird lips are very flexible, it's always so fascinating to study them when dealing with some corpses.
The keratin is also shaped like lips in most birds. I don't know why more people don't point this out, but the beak isn't flat. The top 'lip' overlaps the bottom one in most birds, and if they had teeth, they'd be covered by that lip.
Also, maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure I see lips on the borealopelta mummy fossil. And I think it's weird for people to assume that other dinosaurs had lips, but not theropods. If you ask me, that assumption just shows that they are deciding based on how cool it looks, not how accurate it is. The only dinosaurs I've seen depicted lipless is theropods, and on the rare occasion, sauropods. But usually those are depicted with lips. I really think this displays a real bias in how people depict dinosaurs. Cool sharp teeth should be flaunted in lipless glory, and boring dull teeth should be hidden away by gums and lips. But that's not scientific at all.
@@catpoke9557 same as the most common argument against feathers... it doesnt look cool or scary. Idk, but the idea of a 16 foot tall eagle sounds prettty heckin scary to me.
yeah i see it all the time when my birds bite me
@@Nika44 Tyrannosaurus did not have feathers. We have skin impressions of tyrannosaurus and it's closest, largest relatives and regional equivelents and they're all bald. Stop spreading anti-science bullshit.
@@patreekotime4578 I have never once seen someone make the "feathers aren't scary" argument. I've only seen it as a strawman to deflect when people point out the scaly skin impressions found of the T-Rex.
I don't care what the science says, I'm going to die on the hill of t Rex having extremely impressive and movable lips specifically adapted for kissing.
That's just common sense. Evolution can't keep you from hugging *and* kissing!
So you are dumb, be happy with your ignorance.
BoT. Rex
Kiss my t Rex
Momma said T Rex always kissin cause they arms too short to hold hands!
Whats funny is that many of us grew up with depictions of dinosaurs with lips. In the early 80s most books and media that I encountered were full of art from the 1920s-1960s (presumably because it was out of copyright) and those typically showed dinosaurs as giant lizards... complete with lips. It wasnt until Jurassic Park and the tidal wave of dino renaissance depictions popularized the toothy look which always felt a bit weird IMO.
Dinosaurs didnt have dentist so some might had gotten an overbite
Indeed. However, the distribution of "lips" wasn't offset to trend. Many theropods in Jurassic Park (not Jurassic World) developed traits where the lips size varied extensively--the Coelurosaurians fairing in diversity where the Spinosaurus and Dilophosaurus were in the middle ground.
The raptors and dilophosaurus didn’t have teeth that stuck out so it was only T.Rex without lips in the first film.
@@JurassicReptile Nope. Observing the portions of Jurassic's marketing resourced obviously brought people to view it as such. But anyone--with a trained memory--whom rewatches the first film, will notice the animatronic of the Dilo has exposed teeth; consumers influenced by the slew of marketing depicting the _Dilophosaurus_ in favor of its colorful frill less likely noticed this. Even to the trained eye's observation, the most accurate JP Dilophosaur products (busts, maquettes, etc.) suggest the teeth pass the jaw margin or arrangement limits the full closing of the mouth--enough for them to be exposed.
To be fair, most of the dinosaurs in jurassic Park do have lips! Just not the T. rex
now imagine a world where dinosaurs get lip injections because they discovered vanity with time
T-Sex
nahh💀💀
Besides big lips also big boobs and a big ass, quite a "feast"for the eyes.
The way things are going now with new discoveries it might even become reality.
Remember how Spinosaurus has changed over the past few years.
@@beeeeeeeeeeg The Californicus Kardashianausorus
Duck-lipped dinosaurs
I keept saying it and fighting with people. Lips are the norm in tetrapods. Exposed teeth is usually a derived feature, evolved for a specific purpose.
Which specific purposes? That makes no sense
@@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess In crocs, that purpose it to allow water to leave their mouths while still retaining whatever food is inside, so far as I am aware.
I can't fix my spelling mistake because your name is too long to see that section of my comment on mobile xD. Oh well!
I'm an author. And its really frustrating when you find out new data about certain dinosaur anatomy [spinosaurus and dinosaur vocalizations e.g.] you have to rewrite whole chapters. For the past two years I was with the lipped theropod notion.
Keep up the good work man! 😎👍
I saw a biology schoolbook from 2017 and there was information about dinosaurs from 1950 everything was outdated af 🤦
@@geckoraptor9397 almost all schoolbooks have information that is out of date, some of it is INSANELY bad lol
We will never know for certain.
@@treystephens6166 only true statement I've read
Do you write fiction or nonfiction? I'm not familiar with much dinosaur fiction, seems like it'd be a difficult thing to write.
> It probably isn't over.
Though it deffinitively has been reinforced
That's fair. I think the evidence prevented in this paper though is going to be pretty hard to disprove in any meaningful way
@@RaptorChatter Yes, but there's some aspects that are likely to draw criticism, such as the very small sample size of the study of the enamel's histology.
@@miquelescribanoivars5049 Thank you for being ony sane one who admitted this.
Who wouldn’t want lips as kissable as Tyrannosaurus?
Only if you're another Tyrannosaurus and you're looking forward to having children.
@@jeffreygao3956 🤨?
@@demilholokoOFICIAL Tyrannosaurus mating.
@@jeffreygao3956 ok
The uncovered teeth of crocs seem to be more towards the exception than the rule. I appreciate when you discuss ethical issues! Scientists can be as problematic as any other group of humans.
Goes to show how modern crocodiles aren't the living fossiles they were made out to be initially.
Glad to know it's appreciated!
@@FirstDagger The bizarreness of modern crocodiles is underappreciated by most honestly.
@@FirstDagger Honestly crocodilians as a group aren't even that old. Birds are an older clade. Crocodilians only date to about 90 million years ago. Heck, the famous Sarcosuchus wasn't even a crocodilian but a more distantly related kind of crocodyliform.
@FirstDagger I think people are unknowingly referring more to crocodylomorphs than they are to crocodilians specifically. Crocodylomorphs in general are really old. The entire group is over 2 times older than the crocodilians and also includes them.
It'd be kind of like saying "humans aren't the living fossils we know them as" when people are referring to mammalia as a whole, and not specifically genus homo.
Always love updates about old drama
I wouldn't really call scientific debates "drama".
@Maverick
Considering how influenced scientific learning is influenced by politics and bias nowadays, it very much is drama
So, if lips keep teeth moist, and therefor the contemporary crocs don't have them because they are aquatic, did terrestrial crocs in the past develop lips? After all multiple lines of crocs became secondarily terrestrial.
That's the opposite : multiple lineages of crocodilomorphs became semi aquatic. Crocs came out first as terrestrial animals and likely originally had lips. However, with their lifestyle ane hunting technic as snap feeders, they probably reduced lips and so on until now. Technically, crocs kinda still have lips but it doesn't cover their whole dentition : the flesh around are gums covered by skin and you can notice that the gum is pretty thick around those teeth.
So it is likely that crocs started lipped and through time and on multiple occasions they may have lost lips.
Maybe. With things like Kaprosuchus it's hard to say, because they had some notably large teeth, so may have just done the thicker enamel thing. I imagine someone will take a look at that at some point
@@nicolassenmartin1018 That's of course true. And the question is, were the secondarily terrestrial croc lines terrestrial for long enough so evolution had time to work it's magic and re-develop them. Also toothed whales didn't lose their lips despite 50 million years of aquatic life. How about mosasaurs and ichthyosaurs and other secondarily aquatic reptile lines? Did they have lips? So why did aquatic crocs lose their lips while the cetaceans did not?
@@petrairene it may be more related to their feeding strategy for that. Whales, Mosasaurs and Ichthyosaurs are active marine predators. Some may be more of snapping predators like Ichthyosaurs but the others use to be crunch feeders : taking deep bites in their preys (I exclude mysticete). For the case of Plesiosauria and most Sauropterygians those were potentially lipless though given their teeth morphology and feeding strategy.
Also, we could use the new method developed by the scientist team on those animals to determine if those animals had lips or not.
I understood from the video that crocs can expose their teeth because they are heavily enameled (ivory-ish) and that acts as protection when outside water (which can be very long times, especially when hybernating in drought periods), so it's possible that crocodilians did not have lips, it depends on how thick the enamel was basically (same applies to elephant and boar tusks apparently).
Imagine if the guys that hated feathered dinosaurs a few years back used the same argument with dino lips as "not scary like they used to in the old movies" logic.
Leave those guys in Komodo island and let's see if they last a week among those giants without pissing their pants.
Or crocodile monitors. They have much, much larger teeth than a Komodo dragon, and even though they don't look that large, they could actually kill a person through sheer blood loss.
That’s interesting, and I always liked the look of lips.
There’s something perplexing about how up in arms some people can get about whether or not some dinosaurs had lips. People have literally purposed sauropods had TRUNKS for crying out loud! This seems like a small, small thing to get up in arms about, no matter what side you’re on.
Honestly, that's not the craziest idea
I'm hardly a paleo enthusiast anymore and wasn't one for very long so I'm not up to date.
All that said I haven't seen a single Sauropod skull with a potential attachment point for a trunk. What sauropods where people proposing had trunks?
The difference is a lot of people grew up with the non-lipped look (specifically Jurassic Park) so there is a lot of nostalgia and good memories invested in dinosaurs not having lips. It’s why people get so heated about it.
@@phoebusapollo8365 I had a feeling it was about something of that stripe, but I had my doubts considering the velociraptors in JP did have lips.
@@WhatIsSanity it was a hypothesis proposed by Walter Coombs in 1975, but I agree that the evidence supporting this idea is pretty lacking. Even though Coombs was huge with regards to his findings relating to sauropods on land rather than in bodies of water, he also suggested sauropods nostrils resembled elephants or other mammals. The neck would have certainly made the trunk redundant, but even so, it’s just a crazy idea I threw out (though there are crazier ideas purposed, think the dinosaur sex-lakes or aliens being responsible for the K-Pg mass extinction).
"Imagine needing lips to keep your teeth moist."
-crocodilians
I can't believe people look at an Iguana or a Komodo Dragon and say "Oh yeah a lack of lips would be totally less threatening."
Thankyou! That verifies my research on my Spinosaurus! I agonised over this, but after reading Mark Witton's Paeleoartist's Handbook, came down on the side of lips. I think he looks much better with them. (The Spinosaurus that is!)
Spinosaurus didn’t have lips.
@@accelerationquanta5816 how tf do you know that? Are you a time traveler?
@@accelerationquanta5816 Sources?
@@hplovecraftcat Reptiles don't have lips, especially not archosaurs, all of which lack the pseudo-lips possessed by reptiles. Either they're toothless and lipless like birds or their teeth poke out willy nilly like all crocodilians.
Yeah, I really hope someone takes a look at some of the Baryonyx skulls in England and is able to make some of these inferences about Spinosaurids.
Could this mean that the sabre -toothed cats may have had their longest teeth covered by lips? What about the marsupial sabertooth Thylacosmilus?
Thylacosmilus I would expect to have longer tooth coverings because the lower jaw has more area to support the structures. In Homotherium at least there was a paper last year which suggested maybe only the tips would be showing, and that they could have been kept damp by the lower lip tissue, and by residual saliva from the upper lip.
I was watching yesterday something about hippopotamuses and how those massive canines (and the also very threatening incisives protruding forward) get fully covered by the mouth when closed reminded me of sabertoothed felines (in reverse but anyhow). After watching this video I realized also that there's a reason why ivory is not made out of any tooth but only those that are exposed to the environment such as elephant or boar ones. So I'd go with the rule of thumb mentioned here: if it's not ivory-ish, it was inside the mouth most of the time.
Depends on what sabre tooth we’re talking about. Smilodon likely didn’t have covered fangs, while the less extreme ones like Homotherium probably did similar to a clouded leopard
Remember that mammalian lips are unique among tetrapods. The upper lips often lap over the lover ones. This allows elongated teeth to poke out as can be seen in some small deer species.
Mammal lips are widely different from reptile ones. Mammalian saber teeth should not be something to consider in a dinosaur lip debate
"Varanus Salvadorii"
The best pet horror show for you.
Thank you, Ezekial. No derf theropods.
I wonder if the extinct land crocs, which presumably spent little time in water, had lips to keep their teeth moist.
Teeth don't have to be moist. Completely fake idea.
Bold claim I'd love to see it backed up with a source.
It's possible that semi-aquatic crocodilians and related animals lost lips over time, with lips potentially being ancestral to archosaurs, only being lost secondarily in certain groups. As mentioned in the paper, early terrestrial crocodylomorphs likely had lips as well, based on skull anatomy.
Based on Hesperosuchus I'd expect they did have lips. Although with some, like Kaprosuchus, there were notably long teeth, so there's more argument there for them to have just had thicker enamel like other crocodylians
@@accelerationquanta5816 have you ever had a filling removed? You feel the pain of dry teeth *quickly*.
I remember having T-rex toys in the late 80s which were still depicted as standing upright, dragging their tails on the ground like a kangaroo. It's fascinating how science and biology is all connected.
Sounds like just a shitty toy
Also a bizare thing is that the jp rex didnt have lips there but the raptors did
I dont agree. The tyrannosaur did have lips, but it did have exposed teeth.
I am officially calling this Rexy Lips Day.
@Dav Yx Yx - hey, corny isn't irrelevant!
I think lips on dinosaurs make them look more like a living, breathing animal :] but that's just my opinion
I think that hadrosaurs with cheeks, and ceratopsians with cheeks, make them look real, too
So are crocs not living animals?
@@nutyyyy Not what I meant m8
@@nutyyyy Crocs live in water half the times, so they don't need lips to moisten their teeth, to prevent them from rotting (same hypothesis is applied to Spino, ichty, etc).
Every land animal has lips covering the teeth, there is no reason theropods shouldn't have lips. Proponents of lipless theropods should take a look at the skulls of crocodile monitors and reticulated pythons, and imagine how paleo artists with no knowledge of snakes or lizards would depict them. Whether hadrosaurs and ceratopsians had cheeks is another matter, which has to do with how they used their teeth. If they chewed their food or just gobbled it up.
Honestly, I have been drawing lips on dinos since I was a kid in the late 70's and 80s. Just because it made sense to me. I was always disgruntled as a kid and teen that movies and Paleo books at the time just drew skin on top of skeletons with no muscle mass between the two. So, my adding lips to therapods was just common for me to add. I guess I was way ahead of the game thinking "Would not the dry air and windstorms damage exposed teeth?" Years later University confirmed my theory when I was majoring in Archaeology.
Awesome
Amazing talk loved this video what is the little tyrannosaur mini skeleton figure on the shelf to the left of the video I’d love one !!! ❤
Giving t Rex lips makes me think of komodo dragons.
Looks like two major paleontologists Thomas Carr and Julien Benoit are "Completely unconvinced" by this new paper's findings. *The debate is not over.*
👍
The debate has basically been over for years. Lips is an ancestral condition for all tetrapods, I would argue all jawed vertebrates. So the null hypothesis is that dinosaurs had lips until proven otherwise. So it's on those who doubt they have lips to demonstrate their claims.
Thomas Carr. The guy who actually claimed that theropod and crocodilian jaw textures look anything alike.
I feel like he lost his right to have a valid opinion on this subject.
@@tjarkschweizer He's the world's foremost expert on tyrannosaurs. When you can claim something similar, come back to me. In the mean time, stop the plank act.
@@The_Cosmic_Yog-Sothoth I am not discrediting his expertise on Tyrannosaurs. I am specifically criticizing his claim of theropod and crocodile foramina looking similar enough to justify slapping a croc-smile on theropods.
That was his argument in 2017 and can be refuted by simply looking at the jaws of these animal groups.
If t rex doesn't have lips, then how do they kiss?
Why would they need to kiss? Only humans do that Lol
I appreciate your content and also that you seem like a really nice guy
This video brought to mind the image of a Tyrannosaur investigating an object using much more motile lips than one would expect, not unlike an ape might.
Which is unlikely to be accurate, but is definitely a new sort of uncomfortable cute.
It'll make sense that dinosaurus have lips: bc without lips, it'll dry out and fall off. And the reason animals (most I think) developed lips, bc they keep the teeth moist. And yes crocidilians doesn't have lips but their teeth didn't dry out bc their semi aquatic and most (I think?) Of the time they spend time in water and it'll keep the teeth moisted
for me the discussion is not whether or not it had lips ..... because for me theropods had lips, my doubt is the size, whether they were small, medium or large, because dinosaurs with large teeth and the largest tyrannosaurus rex with lips small and medium their giant teeth would be exposed, and obviously with the saliva hydrating the gums with the roots and running down the teeth, and I think the t rex lived in a hot and extremely humid environment, forests with a lot of rain, abundant water, swamps, lakes , rivers, sea.... I could get in and out of the water whenever I wanted, I think that all this would favor having few lips, but even so there is no rule of nature because there are current and extinct animals in different situations, like hippos, practically aquatic and with many lips, and saber-toothed tigers, mammoths, elephants, in extremely dry environments and with most of the teeth exposed, that is... yes, they have lips, but small to medium and with all saliva hydrating the gums and roots and running down the teeth hydrating them, for me all three situations are valid, small, medium or large lips in dinosaurs, there are several examples favoring one or the other , mammoths and elephants with the largest teeth on the planet , with most of it all exposed, but with the lips up there protecting the gums and roots and with salivation, for me the debate is very open, the possibility of the t rex having small and medium lips and because they have giant teeth they would appear as a saber tiger, along with salivation and lots of water in the environment, literally everywhere.
bro i don't speak english, and i'm using google translator hahahaa.....
What about land prehistoric crocodiles like kaprosuchus? They had huge jagged teeth and it looks very doubtful they would have lips covering them
@@austinsy8056 since they hunt in land, they can either drink or eat to keep the teeth moist
@@austinsy8056 Kaprosuchus is likely not as terrestrial as was thought, so that doesn't necessarily track.
@@HenrythePaleoGuy makes sense… because it seems likely it would only be semi terrestrial because of it’s teeth
I didn’t know that about the lips keeping teeth moist to help with ware and tear. It makes me think about land crocs. When a crocodylomorph became fully terrestrial was it in their best interest to also adapt lips to cover their teeth? I think that could honestly say a lot about one of our most mysterious crocodylomorphs (and my personal favorite extinct baddie) kaprosuchus. I’ve always been a personal believer of the hypothesis that kaprosuchus had a foot in both worlds. It’d stalk its prey from the water and would chase them down over short distances on land. The fact that kaprosuchus had so many large teeth that would be sticking out seems like it would place it more into the water, especially since its teeth were probably its primary hunting weapon. It also makes me curious about smilodons and the other saber toothed mammals of our past, as well as our own modern saber tooths. Smilodon, unlike kaprosuchus, had the benefit of being able to use its claws as a main weapon, and wouldn’t necessarily be relying solely on its teeth. And water deer have fangs, but they aren’t hunting and putting its teeth up to those weekly stresses. It makes me wonder if these factors all mean that kaprosuchus spent a considerable amount of time in the water. It also makes me wonder if its teeth and ramming skull were more a strange result of sexual display and secondarily a result of hunting. But it also seems like it’s foramina? (nerve holes) were more terrestrail animal oriented, though I’m no biologist so this is just my looking at the skull and comparing it to the pictures you showed. It’s skull was smooth but it looks like a ridge of holes along the teeth, other than the tip of the skull full of small holes. I like to imagine kaprosuchus as an animal similar to qianosuchus, both a predator of land and water. I hope we find more kaprosuchus fossils soon, I love this animal and the mystery that shrouds it. It’s such a great animal for someone like me who loves speculative biology to, well, speculate on.
You can sorta tell if they have lips from their bones; orderly deep grooves at the base of the teeth on the maxilla and mandible are usually attachment sites for soft tissue like gingiva which cover the teeth and need to be protected by some sort of lips!
This was my ‘argument’ and its cool seeing the professional paleontologists saying similar things.
(also, the reason croc teeth dont need covering is partially attributable to the thick hard tissue covering the pulp. I think they went over this in the video)
@Master Baiter Yeah that's what I surmised
The easiest way to tell if birds have lips is to see if your local Chinese restaurant serves Birds’ Lips Soup
You should make a video on the paleontological slapfight over Dravidosaurus sometime
truly a Jurassic Park raptor smirking moment
Ok, prevailing science now thinks tyrannosaurus had lips - cool. Now, let's fight about whether it could snarl! That's kinda badass actually. 😊
I need that Diliphosaurus art you have in your office. It looks amazing.
It's an official print of the concept art for Jurassic Park from Stan Winston's studio! There's still some out there for sale I think
@@RaptorChatter Thank you, sir!
I like the information, especially as someone who kinda tries to keep at least somewhat in the loop concerning things like this.
I'm seriously waiting for anything solid to be released about Spino's since that seems to flip flop every few months.
T-rexes kissed their kids goodnight, confirmed
Thb, I'm surprised that it's only now this is happening, and I find it hilarious that it's almost treated like something new.
You should see the Thomas Carr study about Daspleotosaurus to know more from the other side of the debate
Crocodiles also replace their teeth through out their entire life. They don't have as much of anneed to preserve them like dinosaurs do.
I imagine T-Rex looking like a Pit Bull on two legs both so cute yet so terrifying
Okay hear me out
What if they do have lips but have the ability to lift them up when they're trying to snarl or look intimidating or have facial expressions. (Not like humans or anything but something minimal like wolves snarling and stuff)
I once saw a cow snarling at me.
I seen a post on Facebook saying that tyrannosaurus didn’t have lips covering its teeth because smilodon had big teeth and they were showing. Talk about a ridiculous comparison.
Plot twist: their tongues were large enough to cover the teeth.
You are all wrong, I propose we put giant bulging red lips on T-rex and other dinos!
WE HAVE LIED STOLEN LOOKED PREVERSELY AND USED GODS NAME IN VAIN SO REPENT AND TRUST IN CHRIST FOR HE SAVED U HELL ON THE CROSS.
@@BzotsOutOfIllinois3500 What kind of *rugs you on?
God I am so fascinated by the fact that we have so much more things to discover about dinosaurs
Harryhausen made his eponymous Allosaurus with lips in his film, "The Valley of Gwangi". In fact, in once scene, his lip is shown starting to curl up to show the teeth underneath. Maybe Spinosaurus didn't have lips?
Ornithischian dinosaurs probably didn't have full lips. Many theropods are beaked as well. I think studying beak evolution will help understand lip and lipless conditions. For instance do you need lips to develop a beak or is being lipless help a beak to form?
Honestly it's all changed so much since I was a kid, that I'm expecting someone to find evidence that these things were mammals at this point and I'll be inconsolable if that happens
Why?
Ridiculous.
Will you be able to also talk about a similar debate when it comes to the Pachycephalosaurs? The whole “how far back does the mouth go” because some have portrayed the dinosaur with a smaller maw while others portray it with a sort of toad-like wide maw that goes all the way back near the eyes.
Idk if this is like a skeletal mistake or not where people took the skeleton at face value and said “yes it opened its mouth that wide.”
Happy April Onest
I am curious, based on these conclusions, if the smilodon (sabre toothed cats) had extra enamel on their potentially exposed big teeth?
Potentially. Of just bigger lips that hung some. Like some of those super slobbery dogs.
@@RaptorChatterWhen I draw sabertoothed cats, I give them pouches for their teeth, but still have the tips of the teeth pointing out, so people know it’s a sabertoothed cat.
If dinosaurs, especially theropods, constantly lose their teeth and regrow them back during their lives, then they definitely don’t have lips because they didn’t mind losing the teeth in the first place.
I didn’t think this was a debate after 2016
It’s never been a debate because reptiles don’t have lips, especially archosaurs, and there’s no reason whatsoever to think dinosaurs were unique in that sense.
@@accelerationquanta5816 The majority of living reptiles have lips, because the lizards have lips. The vast majority of archosaurs alive today have beaks, which is not likely the basal condition, given that a great number of dinosaurs weren’t sporting beaks.
@@accelerationquanta5816 i found who didnt watch the video
@@accelerationquanta5816 you know that living Archosaurs, and Archelosaurs as we can include turtles in that clade, are very particular right? Closest dinosaur relatives funnily enough aren't good analogues for the ones lacking beaks : those being crocodilians and have a very particular lifestyle and feeding strategy which advantage the absence of lips. Also, coming on beaks, those do not determine if the ancestral animals were lacking lips. From a logical stance, beaks probably evolved from lips as they first were covering teeth in stem birds like Ichthyornithiforms. So, technically, beaks evolved as highly keratinized lips in some sense.
Phylogeny backtracking can be a good tool but in some cases, like here, ecology is more important as well as the evidences provided as in the facial structure (which is what has been done in this paper).
@@accelerationquanta5816 Have you ever stepped outside and looked at a lizard?
Even if they have lips, those lips typically pull back and expose the teeth when actively biting something.
For me the most convincing aspect of the research is the tooth enamel part, as there is very little (if at all) leeway and alternative explanations for that. The jaw architechture of at least some theropods (including _Tyrannosaurus_ itself) being impossible to fully close without lips brought up in the supplementary material
The foramina aspect of the paper also makes me increasingly agree with Hone (brought up in the Terrible Lizards' review of Prehistoric Planet) in that Carr _et al._ (2017) were probably wrong in arguing that tyrannosaurids had croc-level sensitive ISOs, as they likely had big nerve openings simply because they are big animals, and Carr _et al._ not accounting and adjusting for that in the data makes their skulls seemed like hyper-sensitive structures in the _Daspletosaurus horneri_ paper. Indeed, Benoit _et al._ (2022) found that _Tyrannosaurus_ itself may instead have had an average facial sensitivity for terrestrial toothed theropods.
Honestly I'm surprised we didn't agree agree on this much sooner. It sounds 100% logical. Thank you for summarizing it up.
Julien Benoit have very interesting argument AGAINST lips. He note that beaks are incredibly common in dinosaurs relatives, it appeared several times in birds, several time in non avian theropods, in ornithischians, pterosaurs, even crocodilomorpha and of course, in turtles. Plus there is an hypithesis on disposable ramphotheca in sauropods. On the other hand there is very few instances of beacks in lepidosauromorpha and other reptiles, the only case I can think of is Eretmorhipis. It's also very rare in synapsids (platypus and dicynodonts).
It's sounds like evolving a beak in archelosauria is very easy and happens everytime the diet is suitable for it. Like they all have an already a hardened keratine around the mouth with teeth just embeded in it.
And I personally found his argument more convincing than the repeated ad-nauseum "cus teeth wil crack". That is only a mammal concern. Problem is, most people go for the functional argument instead of even entertaining the phylogenetic one. YET, for feathers, everyone will go for the phylogenetic card . Funny how it goes ;)
As a matter of taste, I think they look cool either way.
@@saidi7975 he also have a an argument against representation of lips in paleoart. Or other floppy parts. Paleoart is an illustration of the scientific data, it doesn't have to be extra realistic, a skin wrap with neutral colors is probably not realistic but it kind of show the fossil itself. Lips cover the teeth, one of the most studied part of a fossil, dont cover it unless you have solid litterature backing up your aesthetic choice.
@@StalkerNaturaliste Considering lips are the ancestral condition of all tetrapods, you have to have evidence that dinosaurs didn't possess lips. Lips are the null hypothesis, so not one actually have to provide evidence that they had them.
@@saidi7975 Phylogenetically dinosaurs probably had lips. Lips are the ancestral condition of ALL tetrapods, I would go so far as to say all jawed vertabrates. So lips are the null hypothesis. You'd need positive evidence that dinosaurs didn't possess lips, not the other way around. Modern crocodilians are highly specialized predators that were likely ancestrally lipped while birds actually DO possess lips in the corners of their mouths.
This argument can be easily turned around by proposing that beaks form from lips. Meaning that the presence of beaks points to an ancestral lipped condition.
Benoit also appears to be ignoring that lips are the basal condition for tetrapods.
4:38 What about Spinosaurus and non-dinosaurs like marine reptiles from the time? Would they have a more croc-like face?
Great, now I can't un-see a T-Rex using it's lips to smile at it's victim. 👄
Without soft tissue preservation it's still a bit of a tossup, as comparisons to unrelated taxa (like what they're doing to Dunkleosteus now) are notoriously misleading & unreliable. I'd take any paper comparing Archosaurs like Dinosaurs to Lepidosaurs with a hefty grain of salt.
Why? How are archosaurian jaws different from lepidosaurian ones?
@@tjarkschweizer Archosaur teeth are implanted within sockets in the jaw, while lepidosaur teeth are implanted either to the sides or apices of the jaw. That alone is a massive difference when trying to compare the jaws of these animals & cherrypicking which traits would & wouldn't apply. Archosaur dentition is more similar to Mammals than Lepidosaurs, yet the latter is used to infer about their facial characteristics. Gimme a break.
@@bustavonnutz So true
@@bustavonnutz This difference in dentition has no impact on the lip debate though. There still is no reason why theropod dinosaurs would lack them.
@@tjarkschweizer Yes it does, the maxilla is literally part of the upper jaw, & cherrypicking which traits would & wouldn't be shared between distantly related taxa is exactly why modern Biology is turning into a meme field.
5:19 ALSO, the lip-line is used in these types of varanos to keep the teeth inside apart from rubbing/puncturing against the roof and floor of the mouth. That's why they have this huge space inside their skulls and why their snouts are so roundish. But looking at the tyrannosaurus, it would need a lot of extra flesh that would bulge out around the lip-line to keep the teeth from crashing/rubbing against each other. Since it seems there are no signs of wear on the lingual side of the upper teeth, this means that the dinosaur never could have shut them like a shear and kept them separate in rest pose, just like the varanos. That means, the final outline of the profile of the head would have been quite more roundish and bulgy. I just hope someone can depict it in a picture, that the tyrannosaurus couldn't close its teeth close, thus making his head to look huge and weight a bit more because of the flesh that keep the lower-jaw away from colliding with the upper-teeth. A tyrannosaurus with a more roundish profile that hides its buzzaw teeth inside would be a fearsome sight (or a cute one). I just want to see it yawn 😆
I appreciate you addressing that there was an abusive environment for the students, always appreciate that kind of stuff
I'm glad they found this. I always thought dinosaurs showing their teeth looked stupid.
Jurassic Park would be terrible if the Trex had lips 😂
@@TheRubberStudiosASMR would actually look cooler
Having lips makes much more logical sense, but I got to admit the toothy look is way funnier IMO
Also the climate was more humid in the Cretaceous. That would keep exposed teeth more moist anyway.
for me the discussion is not whether or not it had lips ..... because for me theropods had lips, my doubt is the size, whether they were small, medium or large, because dinosaurs with large teeth and the largest tyrannosaurus rex with lips small and medium their giant teeth would be exposed, and obviously with the saliva hydrating the gums with the roots and running down the teeth, and I think the t rex lived in a hot and extremely humid environment, forests with a lot of rain, abundant water, swamps, lakes , rivers, sea.... I could get in and out of the water whenever I wanted, I think that all this would favor having few lips, but even so there is no rule of nature because there are current and extinct animals in different situations, like hippos, practically aquatic and with many lips, and saber-toothed tigers, mammoths, elephants, in extremely dry environments and with most of the teeth exposed, that is... yes, they have lips, but small to medium and with all saliva hydrating the gums and roots and running down the teeth hydrating them, for me all three situations are valid, small, medium or large lips in dinosaurs, there are several examples favoring one or the other , mammoths and elephants with the largest teeth on the planet , with most of it all exposed, but with the lips up there protecting the gums and roots and with salivation, for me the debate is very open, the possibility of the t rex having small and medium lips and because they have giant teeth they would appear as a saber tiger, along with salivation and lots of water in the environment, literally everywhere.
bro i don't speak english, and i'm using google translator hahahaa.....
I don't think the humidity in the air is a factor. Even lizards that live in the Amazon rainforest have lips.
@@minutemansam1214 But they don't use titanic bite forces to drag down huge prey, such as did large theropods like T. rex and Giganotosaurus. My point has been that such lips would be selected against in large theropods, in order to prevent injury to those lips.
@@christianvaixco196 I have to agree with you there. Along with terrestrial crocs such as Kaprosuchus, Barinasuchus and Quinkana, there were also many early toothed birds, which also had beaks. Did they have lips? I very much doubt it.
@@The_Cosmic_Yog-Sothoth Lips would not be selected against because they are pliable; they move out of the way when the animal bites. Also lip injury occurs all the time in lizards like komodo dragons yet they still have lips.
Crocodiles live in aquatic/humid environments, yet their teeth are much more worn than theropod teeth. This new paper demonstrates this, and the only logical conclusion is that theropod teeth were covered.
I do have to say ... illustrations of T-rex without lips looks more scary but with lips looks more 'natural'
What about Pterosaurs like Anhanguera, that have long interlocking teeth?
They may have done something else, and hopefully someone will look into that. This paper was focused on the dinosaurs, but it at least gives a good template of ways to estimate for lips.
I wonder this a lot too. I honestly have no clue if pterosaurs had lips or not, and it bothers me
Does this mean I could kiss a Tyrannosaurus?
Not if they are extinct since 66 My.
No probably not😅
h u h
@@tyrannosaurusrex8183 bro don’t tell me ur blushing
@@tyrannosaurusrex8183 you better not be
I have been saying this for years...T-Rex does NOT walk around going derf, derf, derf. Lips. Plus the coloring of most teeth negates camo.
Reptiles don't have lips.
@@accelerationquanta5816 monitor lizards, snakes, iguanas
@@IXAzero None have lips.
@@accelerationquanta5816 🫵troll
@@accelerationquanta5816 Did you even watch the video??? He points out that they aren’t movable lips like ours, but they’re still technically lips and the teeth are covered.
I'm sure that I watched a video saying crocodiles have multiple replacement teeth during their lifetime. So being exposed to excess wear, is not so much of an issue?
Would T-Rex have multiple replacement teeth during its lifetime?
T-Rex looks more menacing without lips.
That's wonderful!! We might finally get a remake of 'Tammy and the T-Rex"!
I don’t even get the whole “diNoSAuRs WiTh LiPS arN’t sCAry” argument. Because dinosaur movies in the early twentieth century (while obviously outdated) at least had lips, and people still found them scary. Like Valley of Gwangi, Rite of spring Fantasia, and the 1933 King Kong T. rexs. People actually ran out of the theater watching 1933 King Kong.
But now we’re complaining about that aspect not looking scary enough? In fact horror shouldn’t rely on a “sCAry LoOkInG MUnSTeR” anyways.
Jurassic Park isn’t considered a horror movie because the dinosaurs look scary. It’s scary because of the claustrophobic feeling you get when you’re trapped with them.
So this argument is ignorant on both a scientific level, and an artistic level.
Edit: Actually the more I think about it now; even the Velociraptors and the Dilophosaurus from Jurassic Park, had lips that covered their teeth. So even the film that started this whole trend knew dinosaurs had lips.
Pfffffft Bullshit
Build a goddamn Time machine and go to the age of the Dinosaurs if the Theropods have lips but in general is unknown to our eyes.
@@LuisRivera-jk1vo Dude, you literally just watched a video explaining why dinosaurs had lips.
Not only do their teeth show no tooth wear; and they have lateral foramina above their teeth, which allow veins, and nerves to connect to lips. But literally all terrestrial animals have lips that cover their teeth.
“Well you didn’t see a non-avian dinosaur, therefore you can’t say they had lips” is a very lazy, and unethical argument. Because if that was a legitimate argument, then I could say that T. rex’s breathe fire, and were the true cause for the end Cretaceous mass extinction event; and pass that off as fact.
I see no evolutionary need for lips, at least in the giant theropods. Those lips would have to be immobile, as reptiles don't have muscled lips like mammals do, so given the titanic bite forces
unleashed by larger theropods on their prey, those lips would sustain damage and put the animal at risk of infection whenever it ate. Plus, this idea that teeth need to be kept lubricated is BS.
Sabre-toothed cats had exposed fangs and it never caused them an issue. Also, there were many terrestrial crocodyliforms such as Kaprosuchus, Barinasuchus and Quinkana, which most likely didn't have lips, yet no issues for their teeth. The teeth of archosaurs were constantly replaced anyway, so if they got worn out, they get a new one through soon enough.
Why would lips sustain damage whenever they ate? An animal's lips typically don't get in the way of its teeth regardless of whether they are mobile like a mammals. Also, you bring up crocodyliforms, you do realize that this paper brought up croc teeth right? In the video it's stated they have much thicker enamel than dinosaur teeth and are more resilient to wear. Comparing them with theropods is not reasonable. Also, lizards and amphibians can replace teeth indefinitely, just like theropods could, yet they still have lips. So how is that evidence against lips?
Finally, lips are the ancestral condition in all tetrapods, dating all the way back to the first amphibians. This isn't a matter of whether theropods had any evolutionary need of lips, it's a matter of whether they had any evolutionary need not to have lips. Saber-tooth cats, at least smilodon that is, had a reason why their fangs were exposed since they were so big. I don't see such a reason for theropods. And even in smilodon's case, most of its teeth still had lips protecting them, and only part of the fangs were exposed.
@@bryceburns7425 Huge bite forces unleashed by large theropods during a kill action would be inflicted in an equal and opposite direction onto these supposed lips, causing damage. Damage which would not be beneficial to the organism. Go and argue with the paleontologists Thomas Carr and Julien Benoit who are "Completely unconvinced" by the findings of this study. Carr states that it was the dentin not the enamel of Tyrannosaur teeth which was more significant. Then admit you're wrong, and get back to me later. The debate is not over.
"I see no evolutionary need for lips, at least in the giant theropods"
Lips are the ancestral condition. So they don't need an evolutionary reason to have them. It's the base condition for all tetrapods.
"Those lips would have to be immobile, as reptiles don't have muscled lips like mammals do, so given the titanic bite forces
unleashed by larger theropods on their prey, those lips would sustain damage and put the animal at risk of infection whenever it ate."
A high bite force does not risk damage to immobile lips. Lots of modern reptiles have pretty powerful bites yet still possess lips.
"Plus, this idea that teeth need to be kept lubricated is BS.
Sabre-toothed cats had exposed fangs and it never caused them an issue"
Most saber-toothed cats probably had lips covering their teeth. The exception seems to be Smilodon, and even then their teeth are structured more like an elephants tusk than human teeth. Ask people who do not produce saliva very well. Their teeth easily rot and crack.
"Also, there were many terrestrial crocodyliforms such as Kaprosuchus, Barinasuchus and Quinkana, which most likely didn't have lips, yet no issues for their teeth."
They could have developed from an aquatic lipless form and readapted to terrestrial life. Barinasuchus specifically looks like it would have possessed lips, Quinkana IS a crocodilian and all crocodilians lack lips, while Kaprosuchus belongs to a family of crocodyliforms that are largely aquatic. Plus crocodilian teeth are structured more like the tusks of mammals, which have a very thick layer of enamel, unlike therapod dinosaurs which had a much thinner layer, more like the teeth of mammals and lizards.
Saber toothed cats DID have an issue with the teeth
They broke very easily, usually when hitting the bone of the prey
@@minutemansam1214 whenever i eat I always accidentally tear apart and bite the inside of my lips and mouth it sucks they only get in the way honestly
It's wonderful that even just a year after this video came out the discourse has died down and it feels like, yes everyones accepted, trex had lips, wild to think we used to doubt that
Thank you for explaining this so well
I knew of this back and forth from before, but I didn't know about the evidence. My thanks for giving such a clear set of evidence.
OMG, I always wanted to ask this- Did Dinosaurs thanked god for food and an Ark to survive the flood and the mankind, digesting in their digestive systems, continued living later in a simulation ran by civilized dinosaurs due to feeling extremely and superstitiously guilty about their history, do you know
Yes I do, but I signed an NDA. I'm sorry.
There was another Ark in which Noah's brother Jim tried to save the dinosaurs, but sadly it shipwrecked before being saved. The brontosaurs made that Ark capsize.
@@rursus8354 mfw bronto wasn’t nowhere nearest the largest sauropod in size (he has no knowledge on dinosaurs therefore funny)
Who cares if he was abusive? It has nothing to do with the ideas. We need to stop discounting information because it comes from a-holes. If it is correct it is correct.
Nobody is saying he's not a good researcher. But keeping abusers in the field only acts as an additional barrier to entry, and one which has no bearing on the science, meaning good scientists are not going into the field because of people who are abusive.
@@RaptorChatter ah, I thought It was being used to discredit the work based on your entreaty not to lump in et al
I don't know why the algorithm chose to send me to your channel. Perhaps it is a just and loving algorithm. Regardless, as a nerd who has no formal training in archeology, anthropology, paleontology, and no post graduate qualifications in any meaningful hard science, I like this. I will stay.
Glad you like it!
I don't think it will be over until they find a mummified head of a T-rex or similar animal.
also: abusive jerks may, or may not, do excellent science. Feelings are irrelevant to the science. It's a matter for others to chose not to, or to, work for or with him or her in future.
The thing is that keeping people with these sorts of histories have prevented people from underrepresented communities from getting into paleontology. By contuning to normalize abusive actions in academia it only raises the bar for entry in a way that has nothing to do with the science
I don't want to put them on blast, but one of the main acknowledged researchers on the paper (not an author but she's mentioned in the work) is one of the graduate students who was abused for years by the paper's corresponding author during his time as her advisor. This study may very well not have been published at all had she decided to drop from the project because of said abuse she was enduring, so to say feelings are irrelevant to the science is basically saying _Who cares about your wellbeing? I need to know about a dead animal's appearance._
@@RaptorChatter that does not logically follow...abusive is not automatically racist or sexist, and if either of those is to be inferred, I'd think they'd have been said outright these days (as they are said often when they have no bearing at all, -ist or -phobe are universal adjectives applied to those having MILD DISAGREEMENTS today)...and moreover, it's not my, or hopefully anyone's, job to try to create quotas of whatever groups in paleontology or any other field. Again, science doesn't care about feelings & neither need anyone else. It's 2023, not 1923 or 1823. I automatically call bullshit now, and that was EARNED by woke nonsense & limousine liberal hypocrisy; so self-disgraced by now that they are the problem, any roadblocks remaining are created by their own loathsome methods & rhetoric.
@@Adasaur250 I do not know any of those people nor were they even named, gendered, etc. I wish no one ill, but I do not trust claims along these lines AT ALL anymore & neither should anyone else. A literal he said/she said case, as anti- scientific as one could be. If someone was abused, I wish them success in gaining redress. If they are abused for a long period of time, then I wonder why they let it happen. I wish them to build strength of character so as to not allow themselves to be victims again. I do NOT celebrate their victimhood or pretend it makes them good or special. It is INFINITELY easier to trash a reputation today then to defend one (there is almost no chance any male succeeds vs any female in such cases), so if she's really got something to say, she can say it & destroy this dude. She doesn't need, know or care, about me. I'm here to hear how the debate about T-rex lips being settled, which, whatever you might think, is what one can reasonably expect in a video called "The T-rex lip debate is over". If you know these people or just want to listen to social justice warfare, virtue signaling among a political caste or whatnot, that's fine for you, but screw you pretending I'm the odd one here.
@@RaptorChatter seriously, you and the other dude seem to know these people, so if you DO actually care about the issue & individuals, put them all on blast and make actual charges/a case, and not the vaguest of innuendos without any substance. I still probably will not love it, as the court of public opinion is not the place for such matters IMHO, but I know I'd not be anywhere near as negative about this as what was actually done came across as to me. If you want to be taken for having convictions, then you must actually have convictions & stand to them when it's hard to. Otherwise, it's just bullshit/fake/distractions/slimy/virtue signals. And I'm going to call that out as unwelcome.
Dinosaurs, more kissable than expected???
The Trex actually lived in trees like modern day birds.
I mean, I don't have a big heart for either. I know some older folks really went hard for dinosaurs, but I just like the science getting us closer ideas of what they might have looked like
The CBC has a great rendition of Tyrannosaurus Rex with lips. Awesome reconstruction and terrifying as well.
If they're anything like monitor lizards (like the mentioned varanus salvadorii), then they don't just have lips, but also gums that cover their teeth like a sheeth.
Monitor lizard teeth are like those of Toothless from How To Train Your Dragon; they are retractable.
I like either version.
I enjoyed listening to this video
Gonna have to fix that picture behind you!
There are mammals today that have exposed teeth without prolonged water dips. Boar tusks and that tiny fanged deer(ungulates are the biggest exception to the moisture requirement for enamel rule). In terms of prehistoric mammals, Smilodon tends to have very long sabers (6 inches) that have no evidence of being covered in skin. Homotherium though have evidence of enough skin material on their lower jaw to match their still huge but manageable 3-in fangs so they can still be using their lips, just the opposite side (this is how modern big cats keep their canines wet). Elephant ivory, it turns out, is mostly dentine with collagen fibers crisscrossing the structure lattice, so it doesn't need to get that prolonged moisture requirement.
I vaguely remember from a crocodile doc that they can have exposed teeth because they’re mostly aquatic animals. Teeth exposed to the air constantly can degrade them so I’d think dinosaurs would have lips covering them?
Brilliant stuff, what TH-cam was mad for 👍
I think the lips look better anyways. It makes them look more like an actual animal and not a toothy, spiky movie monster.
Accuracy vs Badass
Sebecidae was a clade of reptiles that survived the K-Pg extinction event. While distantly related to crocodilians, they were ecologically closer to the dinosaurs. Barinasuchus and others from the family were terrestrial predators. So the question is, did they have lips to protect their teeth or not? probably not
Am glad this debate exist though cause it just teaches us alot about dinosaur which is a good thing, but I sure do like to think most dinosaurs had lips like these.
Also I wish y'all are having a great day