Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Carnotaurus doesn't have scales afterall | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 2 2016, 10:10 PM (3,361 Views) | |
| HENDRIX | Mar 3 2016, 02:54 PM Post #16 |
![]()
-retired-
![]()
|
That's not really the point - and even if that were the case, it does not invalidate my point. Czerkas clearly says "scales all over the body" and not "scales only in select parts". |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 02:59 PM Post #17 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
Which is moot since we have other parts of the body with photographs proving it wasn't covered entirely by scales. You can't disprove photographs no matter how much popular opinion is backing you. |
![]() |
|
| HENDRIX | Mar 3 2016, 03:03 PM Post #18 |
![]()
-retired-
![]()
|
Pics please? How does a bit showing an area with no scales disprove that? Scales don't fossilize easily. If we have small samples of scales from "all over the body", we can interpolate the areas inbetween. Unless there is proof that there was something other than scales, ie. feather impressions, we have to conclude the whole thing is scaly. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 03:09 PM Post #19 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I'm gonna try and end this here and apologize for my initial comment, Incinerox it was backhanded and aggressive and I didn't see that at the time. But I still stand by my point then and in following comments that your claim should have been taken with salt given the lack of source material.There are clear pictures in the link in the OP. That is very obviously elephantine skin and not scales. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Mar 3 2016, 03:12 PM Post #20 |
![]() ![]()
|
Enough. Star you might not agree with Incinerox and his views on the subject, but that doesn't give you the right to be that rude to him and other members. And this isn't the first time you act disrespectfully towards others, so expect your warn level to be raised appropriately. Now, if anyone wants to continue discussing the subject of the topic, go ahead, just do it in a civil manner. Any other instances of personal attacks will result in warns. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Mar 3 2016, 03:13 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Hang on, the only pics we have of the entire animal are those which are cited by Bonaparte as having 5mm tubercular scales with larger keeled scales in among them (the more or less same sort of thing we actually see on hadrosaurs), and that's your evidence for an animal without scales? Now if you care to accept Czerkas as a viable source as most paleontologists do, the data extends to tubercular scales on the back with osteoderms arranged in parallel rows along the flanks, and maybe scales on the face (which is actually a pretty big deal if this last part gets confirmed). Cau, and by proxy you, are dismissing so far non-digital work as void, and contradicting one of the only photos in existance of Carnotaurus's skin to justify your claims. REALLY the ball is in your court now. EDIT: Damnit, got ninja'd again. TWICE. ONE DAY. THIS NEVER HAPPENS! Anywho, I'd also like to apologise if I came across as a bit aggressive in earlier posts. I forget that not everyone is used to my general hot bloodedness. Edited by Incinerox, Mar 3 2016, 03:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| HENDRIX | Mar 3 2016, 03:14 PM Post #22 |
![]()
-retired-
![]()
|
Oh I hadn't realized these could be enlarged! I recommend doing so, because it clearly and undoubtedly shows the scales in the negative mold.![]() (I'd invert it so it's better to see but I have to do something else - brb) Edited by HENDRIX, Mar 3 2016, 03:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 03:20 PM Post #23 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
You really felt the need to do this literally right after I apologize? I'll be contacting you elsewhere to continue this. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 03:22 PM Post #24 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
No problem dude, I didn't take any offense we're all more than a bit hotblooded in this hoby. You bring up a great point here too, and those enlarged photos definitely shed a different light on this. |
![]() |
|
| HENDRIX | Mar 3 2016, 03:23 PM Post #25 |
![]()
-retired-
![]()
|
Rather crude but it definitely looks like scales / tubercles to me:![]() A real positive mold would be better but an inversion gets pretty close to that. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 03:28 PM Post #26 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I was looking at the surrounding area which in the smaller image looked like skin, but enlarged it definitely looks like it could be scales which coupled with Czerkas description leaves that as the most likely option. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Mar 3 2016, 04:04 PM Post #27 |
![]() ![]()
|
You hadn't posted that yet while I was writing down my post, so apologize if it sounds like late action or something like that. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Mar 3 2016, 06:23 PM Post #28 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
Hmm so this is what happens when in a short span of time. Still though I do love reading these articles even if they aren't 100% factual Edited by BossMan, Jake, Mar 3 2016, 06:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Mar 3 2016, 06:25 PM Post #29 |
![]() ![]()
|
In hindsight this kind of reminds me of the whole Brian Ford "aquatic dinosaurs" incident in 2012, something that blatantly contradicts evidence but gets taken seriously by some people anyway because of how "revolutionary" it is. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Mar 3 2016, 07:40 PM Post #30 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I still don't think there's much in the way of contradiction. This actually brings to light quite a few points about just how little really is known of Carnotaurus integument and lends plausibility that what we're seeing could in fact be skin with larger structures between, or more likely the status quot could be right and it could be small scales. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups













