An ankylosaur larynx provides insights for bird-like vocalization in
non-avian dinosaurs

Abstract

A voice box (larynx) is unique for tetrapods and plays functional
roles in respiration, airway protection, and vocalization. However, in
birds and other reptiles, the larynx fossil is extremely rare, and the evolution of this structure remains largely unknown. Here we report
the fossil larynx found in non-avian dinosaurs from ankylosaur
Pinacosaurus grangeri. The larynx of Pinacosaurus is composed of the
cricoid and arytenoid like non-avian reptiles, but specialized with
the firm and kinetic cricoid-arytenoid joint, prominent arytenoid
process, long arytenoid, and enlarged cricoid, as a possible vocal
modifier like birds rather than vocal source like non-avian reptiles.
Although bird-unique vocal source (syrinx) have never been reported in non-avian dinosaurs, Pinacosaurus could have employed bird-like
vocalization with the bird-like large, kinetic larynx. This oldest
laryngeal fossil from the Cretaceous dinosaur provides the first step
for understanding the vocal evolution in non-avian dinosaurs toward
birds.

Open access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04513-x

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/16/23 13:31, Pandora wrote:

the larynx fossil is extremely rare, and the
evolution of this structure remains largely unknown. Here we report
the fossil larynx found in non-avian dinosaurs from ankylosaur
Pinacosaurus grangeri.

wow - not what one might expect.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pandora wrote:

An ankylosaur larynx provides insights for bird-like vocalization in non-avian dinosaurs

WRONG thinking.

Everywhere some nutter says "Bird-like" in reference to a dinosaur,
you know you're staring at a member of the Lucky Sperm Club. This
is someone who was rich and/or well connected enough to pursue
a career path with ZERO economic value. So you're never getting the
best & brightest, you're getting the luckiest and/or best connected.

Need proof?

Whenever you see "Bird-like" you know you're dealing with an idiot
because it would in fact have to be "Dinosaur-like."

It can't be "Bird-like" vocalizations in dinosaurs, it's "Dinosaur-like" vocalizations in birds.

...a parent does not inherit their blue eyes from their child, you
need to explain to these people.

It makes a difference. It makes a big difference. It's not a little
mistake. It's a mode of thinking, a perception. And it's wrong.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709529851983544320

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:57:30 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:

On February 16, Pandora wrote:

An ankylosaur larynx provides insights for bird-like vocalization in non-avian dinosaurs

WRONG thinking.

Only from your POV.

Everywhere some nutter says "Bird-like" in reference to a dinosaur,
you know you're staring at a member of the Lucky Sperm Club. This
is someone who was rich and/or well connected enough to pursue
a career path with ZERO economic value. So you're never getting the
best & brightest, you're getting the luckiest and/or best connected.

Need proof?

You sure can build castles in the air. Need proof? Keep reading.

Whenever you see "Bird-like" you know you're dealing with an idiot
because it would in fact have to be "Dinosaur-like."

She says tomahto, you say tomato, but neither of you is an idiot:
you aren't thinking outside your box.

It can't be "Bird-like" vocalizations in dinosaurs, it's "Dinosaur-like" vocalizations in birds.

Phylogenetically speaking, the near-consensus on bird ancestry
says you are right, but "dinosaur-like" is a huge unknown
except where it is NOT bird-like, as in Parasaurolophus.

OTOH bird-like is what almost everyone on earth has lots
of knowledge of.

One of the main uses of language is to convey information.

...a parent does not inherit their blue eyes from their child, you
need to explain to these people.

If you've never met the parent, but have observed the eyes
of the child under many lighting conditions, saying that
the parent's blue eyes are the same shade, etc. as the
child's conveys a lot of information. This is especially true
if the other parent's eyes are different and you tell
WHICH parent's eyes are so similar.

It makes a difference. It makes a big difference. It's not a little
mistake. It's a mode of thinking, a perception. And it's wrong.

It's not a mistake; it's a case of most people being in a pragmatic
box while you are in a theoretical box. You are demonstrating how
incapable you are at thinking outside your box.

OTOH I suspect Pandora is so aware of this deficiency of yours
that she didn't bother to set you straight.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS If you were just pretending to an opinion you don't have,
pat yourself on the back for getting me to "feed the troll."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709529851983544320

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Nyikos wrote:

JTEM wrote:

Whenever you see "Bird-like" you know you're dealing with an idiot
because it would in fact have to be "Dinosaur-like."

She says tomahto, you say tomato, but

It makes a difference. You're pretending this is science, remember?

Accuracy matters. Getting things completely ass-backwards is WRONG,
it's not just a stupid mistake. It exposes an inability to perceive things
as they really are.

You know what "Circular Reasoning" is, no doubt, but do you have any
why it's bad?

Seriously. The study of dinosaurs is the study of evolution, and this
nimrod doesn't grasp evolution! The have it backwards!

It can't be "Bird-like" vocalizations in dinosaurs, it's "Dinosaur-like" vocalizations in birds.

Phylogenetically speaking, the near-consensus on bird ancestry
says you are right, but "dinosaur-like" is a huge unknown
except where it is NOT bird-like, as in Parasaurolophus.

How you frame the data matters a great deal. You can't unravel the
mysteries of the past by seeing, and thinking, very wrong.

Yes, this does suffer parallels with human evolution. I've argued
online for near 20 years AGAINST the insane "Humans are apes"
and "Humans evolved from apes" line of thinking, BECAUSE it
locked generations into WRONG answers where the LCA with
Chimps was a Chimp or at least extremely Chimp like. You can
argue that "Humans are apes" isn't technically wrong and it doesn't
matter: It framed everything wrong, it caused generations of
students to believe wrong answers! But in the case of "Bird-like"
behaviors or traits in dinosaurs IT IS WRONG! It's not just polluting
thought, models -- understanding -- but it is absolutely wrong.

OTOH bird-like is what almost everyone on earth has lots
of knowledge of.

"Science is a process. People are idiots."
--JTEM

One of the main uses of language is to convey information.

One would hope that there'd be room for accuracy there... maybe
even two might hope.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669992377715441664

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 6:13:29 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:

Peter Nyikos wrote:

JTEM wrote:

Whenever you see "Bird-like" you know you're dealing with an idiot because it would in fact have to be "Dinosaur-like."

She says tomahto, you say tomato, but

It makes a difference. You're pretending this is science, remember?

I apologize for being way too lenient with you. You are a classic illustration of
"Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile."

Accuracy matters. Getting things completely ass-backwards is WRONG,
it's not just a stupid mistake. It exposes an inability to perceive things as they really are.

Too bad you are describing yourself, not me. Just look at your
pathetic analogy, which ignored the fact that ankylosaurs
are as remote from bird ancestry as kangaroos are from your ancestry:

******************** repost of comments you deleted ********************

...a parent does not inherit their blue eyes from their child, you
need to explain to these people.

If you've never met the parent, but have observed the eyes
of the child under many lighting conditions, saying that
the parent's blue eyes are the same shade, etc. as the
child's conveys a lot of information. This is especially true
if the other parent's eyes are different and you tell
WHICH parent's eyes are so similar.

################## end of repost ####################

Like I said, I was way too easy on you. Birds are NOT to ankylosaurs
as children are to their parents. Do you see how big of an understatement
my preceding sentence is?

You know what "Circular Reasoning" is, no doubt, but do you have any
why it's bad?

You are talking to a mathematician with years of study of logic and over a hundred peer reviewed research papers in leading mathematical journals.
Do see why your question about circular reasoning is irrelevant to what's transpired on this thread so far?

Seriously. The study of dinosaurs is the study of evolution, and this
nimrod doesn't grasp evolution! The have it backwards!

Harshman should love you, he's not interested in dinosaurs unless
they have new ideas on phylogeny to offer. Nothing about anatomy,
nothing about dietary habits...

It can't be "Bird-like" vocalizations in dinosaurs, it's "Dinosaur-like" vocalizations in birds.

Phylogenetically speaking, the near-consensus on bird ancestry
says you are right,

Actually, the near consensus is that birds are theropods,
not ornithischians. Capice?

but "dinosaur-like" is a huge unknown
except where it is NOT bird-like, as in Parasaurolophus.

There's another ornithischian for you. Can you name a theropod,
preferably a coleurosaur, whose vocalisations we know about?

That would be "dog bites man" news. If ankylosaurs really
made bird-like calls, that would be "man bites dog" news.

How you frame the data matters a great deal. You can't unravel the
mysteries of the past by seeing, and thinking, very wrong.

Yes, this does suffer parallels with human evolution. I've argued
online for near 20 years AGAINST the insane "Humans are apes"
and "Humans evolved from apes" line of thinking, BECAUSE it
locked generations into WRONG answers where the LCA with
Chimps was a Chimp or at least extremely Chimp like.

You are now moving towards solid ground. But the situation with birds
and ankylosaurs is at the opposite extreme.

However, there's a lot more involved in "Humans are apes" than
just us and chimps. See my reply to you on another thread less than
half an hour ago:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/fvrYg49qdvA/m/q6nomIrrAwAJ Re: Out of Asia Proven Fact

You can
argue that "Humans are apes" isn't technically wrong and it doesn't
matter: It framed everything wrong, it caused generations of
students to believe wrong answers! But in the case of "Bird-like"
behaviors or traits in dinosaurs IT IS WRONG! It's not just polluting thought, models -- understanding -- but it is absolutely wrong.

OTOH bird-like is what almost everyone on earth has lots
of knowledge of.

"Science is a process. People are idiots."
--JTEM

One of the main uses of language is to convey information.

One would hope that there'd be room for accuracy there... maybe
even two might hope.

You are a fine one to lecture about accuracy.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Nyikos wrote:

Accuracy matters. Getting things completely ass-backwards is WRONG,
it's not just a stupid mistake. It exposes an inability to perceive things as they really are.

Too bad you are describing yourself

No. This isn't kindergarten. I was describing people who call Dinosaur-like traits in birds, "Bird like traits in dinosaurs" Which, I apparently need to point out, is completely ass backwards.

You know what "Circular Reasoning" is, no doubt, but do you have any
why it's bad?

You are talking to a mathematician with years of study of logic and

Okay, so you have no clue.

Seriously. The study of dinosaurs is the study of evolution, and this nimrod doesn't grasp evolution! The have it backwards!

Harshman should love you, he's

Great. Nothing has changed. The study of dinosaurs IS the study of
evolution, and they got it all WRONG! And not just a little wrong, they
got it spectacularly wrong.

...they have dinosaurs evolving FROM birds!

Yes, this does suffer parallels with human evolution. I've argued
online for near 20 years AGAINST the insane "Humans are apes"
and "Humans evolved from apes" line of thinking, BECAUSE it
locked generations into WRONG answers where the LCA with
Chimps was a Chimp or at least extremely Chimp like.

You are now

It's an example of STUPID thinking leads people down the wrong path.

You are a fine one to lecture about accuracy.

I guess so! Considering that, given all your alters you still haven't
figured out that the dinosaurs came FIRST, and any traits they had
which were shared with the later birds would have to be DINOSAUR
LIKE TRAITS in birds...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711397709548027904

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Too bad. On another s.b.p. thread, "Popping Mad" (Ruben Safir) dismissed JTEM as a troll.
I was going to refer him to this thread, where JTEM came through with some good points
(in addition to some asinine allegations, but let that pass) earlier, to show PM that he was over-reacting.

Here, however, JTEM has reverted to complete trolling, including deletion of almost everything
I wrote, including justifications of what he left in. The only halfway sensible thing you see from him below
is text that he left in from two posts back, but he deleted my qualified praise for it along with
my explanation of why it was only halfway sensible.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and JTEM is wasting his here.
I've seen much better things from him in the past, and I hope to see more.

Peter Nyikos

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:43:36 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:

Peter Nyikos wrote:

Accuracy matters. Getting things completely ass-backwards is WRONG,
it's not just a stupid mistake. It exposes an inability to perceive things
as they really are.

Too bad you are describing yourself

No. This isn't kindergarten. I was describing people who call Dinosaur-like traits in birds, "Bird like traits in dinosaurs" Which, I apparently need to point out, is completely ass backwards.

You know what "Circular Reasoning" is, no doubt, but do you have any
why it's bad?

You are talking to a mathematician with years of study of logic and

Okay, so you have no clue.

Seriously. The study of dinosaurs is the study of evolution, and this nimrod doesn't grasp evolution! The have it backwards!

Harshman should love you, he's

Great. Nothing has changed. The study of dinosaurs IS the study of evolution, and they got it all WRONG! And not just a little wrong, they
got it spectacularly wrong.

...they have dinosaurs evolving FROM birds!

Yes, this does suffer parallels with human evolution. I've argued
online for near 20 years AGAINST the insane "Humans are apes"
and "Humans evolved from apes" line of thinking, BECAUSE it
locked generations into WRONG answers where the LCA with
Chimps was a Chimp or at least extremely Chimp like.

You are now

It's an example of STUPID thinking leads people down the wrong path.

You are a fine one to lecture about accuracy.

I guess so! Considering that, given all your alters you still haven't figured out that the dinosaurs came FIRST, and any traits they had
which were shared with the later birds would have to be DINOSAUR
LIKE TRAITS in birds...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711397709548027904

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Nyikos wrote:

I was going to refer him to this thread, where JTEM came through with some good points

I think it's sad that you say "Good" when you mean "Something I agree with."

Here, however, JTEM has

: No. This isn't kindergarten. I was describing people who call Dinosaur-like
: traits in birds, "Bird like traits in dinosaurs" Which, I apparently need to : point out, is completely ass backwards.

This is self evident. If someone really can't tell the difference between Dinosaur--like traits in birds and Bird-like traits in dinosaurs, they really shouldn't be speaking on these topics.

...and if someone can't move past my pointing this out, doubly so!

There's no such thing as a "Bird-like trait" in a dinosaur. Period. Accept it and move on.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/614119333008982016

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)