No new drawings in this article to help me revise my mental picture, though.

I think the article just has a poorly selected title. The real interesting new research it's presenting has nothing to do with how dinosaurs looked. It's really about a possible discovery in dinosaur physiology: that they produced melanin in more than just their skin, which implies that animals might have uses for it beyond just pigmentation.

Yes, exactly. It's really not even limited to dinosaurs.

Nor any descriptive text except for saying that some dinosaurs had feathers, which most people already knew.

I don't like this kind of articles, because they start with a question that is not answered. What's the point about writing an article in a newspaper saying 'what is x' and being the answer 'we don't know' ?

Edit: The title in HN has been changed. It was called "What color evolved for" or something similar...

To remove doubt that there is a single, monolithic cause? And going from unknown unknowns to unknown knows is something very valuable in my opinion

"going from unknown unknowns to unknown knows is something very valuable in my opinion".

Agree, but don't give me a clickbait title (now it has changed)

Actually title of referenced study: "Tissue-specific geometry and chemistry of modern and fossilized melanosomes reveal internal anatomy of extinct vertebrates"

> Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no".

To clarify the article title:

Investigations into dinosaur coloration have revealed that study of melanosomes can reveal details of internal structures in addition to just external appearances.

The implied question was "What colors were the dinosaurs?" The unexpected answer was "Several colors on the outside, but the remains of their internal organs can also be differentiated by color."

Most people haven’t changed their mental image to include feathers yet. Dinosaurs are prehistoric birds.

The idea that dinosaurs were basically warm blooded birds hit pop culture back in 1986[1], four years before the first Jurassic Park.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dinosaur_Heresies

I'm personally looking forward to the Jurassic Park iteration with giant chickens.

Just the same as any other evolved feature: It supported the Four F's (feeding, fighting, fleeing, and fornicating).

That's a bit reductionistic as there's lots of other things organisms do.

Most of human behavior boils down to the same. You can simplify it even further as "doing things to avoid discomfort".

What about sleeping/resting?

Evolution can be rephrased as: a function for maximizing genetic reproducibility. Everything else, including sleeping, is a consequence of - and in service of - this function.

Yes but in that case no reason to highlight fighting and fleeing. I'm just doubtful this "four Fs" from the parent comment is a good mnemonic. It feels more forced than anything and either includes too much or not enough.