Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you.
Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,490 Views)
Similis
Member Avatar


You know, most people wouldn't probably even get many examples from modern day world, so I can understand the teacher's position to some extent. Remember that large portion of the population has a trouble differentating one wild animal from another, let alone getting a grip on what did a prehistoric one prey upon.
Edited by Similis, Oct 6 2013, 03:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

MrGorsh
Oct 6 2013, 03:00 PM
Remember that large portion of the population has a trouble differentating one wild animal from another,
My mom.

All big cats are tigers except for cheetahs... which are leopards.

(off topic but true and... not something I can understand)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I'm annoyed when someone who knows that pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs tries to sound smart by calling them flying lizards. Yes, they're not dinosaurs, but flying lizards isn't much better. Probably worse, in fact, since lizards aren't even archosaurs!
Edited by CyborgIguana, Oct 6 2013, 03:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megaraptorking
Member Avatar
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.

Well they kinda are but but archosaurs are still reptiles descended from lizards who came from amphibians who came from fish who came from slimy slug like creatures. But yeah i have to admit it is kinda not right, their giant flying archosaurs. Does that sound better? Because flying lizards sound better that or their what inspired the Wyverns of myth and legend.

Because I rather call them Wyverns instead of lizards when I do it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Megaraptorking
Oct 6 2013, 04:28 PM
Well they kinda are but but archosaurs are still reptiles descended from lizards who came from amphibians who came from fish who came from slimy slug like creatures. But yeah i have to admit it is kinda not right, their giant flying archosaurs. Does that sound better? Because flying lizards sound better that or their what inspired the Wyverns of myth and legend.

Because I rather call them Wyverns instead of lizards when I do it.
Archosaurs are descended from lizard-like creatures, true, but not actual lizards. Lizards are just as derived as archosaurs and evolved from different ancestors.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinoBear
Member Avatar


It annoys me that almost every piece of dinosaur media shows female theropods (mostly tyrannosaurids) being larger than males and stating it as fact, despite the fact that we have very little evidence of that being the case. It would be fine if only some shows did this, but pretty much everything under the sun shows females being the larger of the two. Dinosaur Revolution is the only thing from media that inverted this trope, off of the top of my head.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


I hate how biased opinions can have an effect on paleontology, like the bias that because Archaeopteryx was originally, it is considered a bird even though there are PLENTY of species just as if not more bird-like than Archaeopteryx that are not considered members of aves. Wellnhoferia, considered Archaeopteryx's closest relative, has a sickle claw for crying out loud! -.- There's a big 30 million year or so gap between Archaeopteryx and the appearance of anything else considered a bird, too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

I would personally consider all maniraptors to be birds.

But "birds" isn't even really a class; birds are all just highly derived reptiles.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


As in the class Aves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

Yes.

I would think all maniraptors should be in the class Aves; they only really differ in having teeth (some 'birds' had teeth also, however), more tail vertebrae, and more functioning arms.

Basically I am agreeing with you. Sort of. I consider Archaeopteryx a bird, but I also would consider all of its relatives birds too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


Dromaeosaurids and Troodontids are in the clade Paraves along with Aves. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


not sure if it's related, but the fact i can't remember dinosaur names as once.
the other day i found out about this Spanish Rebbachisaur but i don't remember it's name ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


DinoBear
Oct 7 2013, 08:30 PM
It annoys me that almost every piece of dinosaur media shows female theropods (mostly tyrannosaurids) being larger than males and stating it as fact, despite the fact that we have very little evidence of that being the case. It would be fine if only some shows did this, but pretty much everything under the sun shows females being the larger of the two. Dinosaur Revolution is the only thing from media that inverted this trope, off of the top of my head.
Agreed. The only reason this is the case is because of Sue, and we don't even know whether or not she's even a female! Though I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility, I'm just annoyed because of how consistently it's portrayed despite the fact that there's no evidence for it. There's no reason it couldn't have been the case. This is the case with birds of prey, after all! ;) But yes, it's persistence in media is annoying. Even works that I otherwise hold high respect for hold the "females are bigger and stronger than males" portrayal: such as Jurassic Park (the Big One), WWD (the female tyrannosaur in Death of a Dynasty), and Raptor Red (the titular character).
Edited by CyborgIguana, Oct 8 2013, 09:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


Actually male birds being larger is the exception, not the norm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

I'd think that since it's most commonly the way modern birds are, and theropodal dinosaurs are most closely related to birds, it would be a fairly valid hypothesis to make the females larger, even though there is no direct evidence per se.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply