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: |
| 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 (256,489 Views) | |
| DinoBear | Oct 8 2013, 03:42 PM Post #166 |
![]()
|
It's not the theory itself that I have a problem with, it's its prevalence and how commonly it's treated as fact that I have issues with. Also, I thought that it was male birds (excluding raptors and some ground dwelling species) that are most commonly larger than females, not the reverse. Then again, plumage also plays a big role. |
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Oct 8 2013, 03:44 PM Post #167 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
Even if that is the case, theropods were predators and ground-dwelling, which again points in favor of larger females. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Oct 8 2013, 05:12 PM Post #168 |
![]() ![]()
|
the advantage of a larger female is quite obvious: she's larger so she can better defend the nest. for not so social animals as theropods (especially large ones), it would be a great advantage. |
![]() |
|
| DinoBear | Oct 8 2013, 06:13 PM Post #169 |
![]()
|
Actually, at least with the rather solitary Cassowaries, it's the smaller males that look after the eggs. Anyways, extreme shrink wrapping is a terrible thing that needs to end. Why must people always starve their dinosaurs while making a documentary/life reconstruction? It's so cruel! |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Oct 8 2013, 06:25 PM Post #170 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
I totally agree. Porkasaurolophus for the win ! |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Oct 8 2013, 06:35 PM Post #171 |
![]() ![]()
|
i bet tyrannosaurs would agree too
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 8 2013, 10:10 PM Post #172 |
![]() ![]()
|
I did say birds of prey, didn't I?
|
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Oct 8 2013, 10:14 PM Post #173 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
I think he was referring to Flish's comment about how larger males was the exception in birds, not the norm. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 8 2013, 10:44 PM Post #174 |
![]() ![]()
|
Back on topic, I'm annoyed by how underrated pterosaurs are among paleo-fans. According to the average paleo-fan, dinosaurs are badass feathered monsters that are awesome in every conceivable way, while pterosaurs are boring oversized vultures that can barely stand up straight on the ground and were out-competed by birds (funny how they fail to take into account the fact that birds and pterosaurs co-existed for nearly 100 million years). I can demonstrate this kind of thinking just by the fact that most of the time when I enter a match in Primal Carnage (which now works on computer by the way after I updated my video card) I end up the only guy playing as Pteranodon (have fun ignoring the fact that I can see humans coming from miles away when I play with this class). It's not so much that they dislike pterosaurs, but that they call them boring solely based on outdated ideas and observations about their biology. At least read more about the awesome bat-storks from Hell before you call them lame. |
![]() |
|
| the dark phoenix | Oct 9 2013, 12:00 AM Post #175 |
|
King of wonderlandia
![]()
|
I don't like shrink wrap but I don't like fat-osaurs either Atrox1 on deviantart makes them the way I am talking about. Not obese but not anorexic either. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 9 2013, 12:36 AM Post #176 |
![]() ![]()
|
Generally speaking, the tendency among paleoartists and paleontologists to exaggerate everything based on pieces of evidence. Some species of Psitaccosaurus had quills on their backs? Every ceratopsid ever has that feature now! Some species of coelorosaurs had feathers or proto-feathers? Every single tyrannosaur and therizinosaur is now feathered! Dinosaur scales are a specially adapted form of feathers? EVERY SINGLE DINOSAUR HAS CHICKENFLUFF NOW! I'm sorry, but where did this idea that scales are completely null and void now come from? It just seems like giving every group the same features over and over again is just so insulting in the artistic department. I know I'm talking more artistically and I'm being a bit biased about this, but it's insulting in the paleoscience department as well! the idea that all ceratopsids were quilled based solely on the fact that one of their ancestors did is just irritating to me. Hey! Guess what? I doubt that all ceratopsids had quills! Guess what? Until I'm presented with better evidence, i think scaly is still a valid way to envision therizinosaurs! this is the exact reason why i love Atrox1's art, because he makes use of feathers without relying on them too much. I'm getting sick of seeing nothing but feathers and quills, and I think we should change this mentality and show some appreciation for scales. I'm sorry if this comes off as poorly researched, obnoxious, hateful, preachy and stupid, but i really needed to rant about this. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 9 2013, 12:43 AM Post #177 |
![]() ![]()
|
I agree that we should be more conservative with feathers, but I don't agree with any of the examples you gave. I like depicting my ceratopsians with quills, and I like giving my tyrannosaurs and therizinosaurs feathers (especially therizinosaurs, they're part of Maniraptora so they certainly had pennaceous feathers). Remember that while animals can lose traits over time, they can also RETAIN traits, which is something that a lot of paleo-fans seem to forget. But I agree that we should be more conservative than we usually are, I still depict non-coelurosaur theropods, thyreophorans, and sauropodomorphs with scales because there's simply no evidence for it and none of their close relatives are known to have been feathered. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 9 2013, 12:57 AM Post #178 |
![]() ![]()
|
I agree. The thing is, animals can LOSE traits over time, like you said, so i think that automatically giving every ceratopsid quills based solely on psitaccosaurus is frustrating not because i hate quills (In fact, i think quilled Triceratops is quite interesting), it's the fact that it feels like we're completely ignoring the fact that animals can lose traits over time, and refusing the possibility that maybe not all ceratopsids had quills, especially considering that they really didn't serve much of a purpose as far as we know. And on the topic of therizinosaurs, you do have a point, but i still doubt that some of the tyrannosaurs that lived in warmer climates where feathers weren't really necessary (Such as Tyrannosaurus, Daspletosaurus, and Tarbosaurus) had a full coat of feathers, rather than sparsely spreaded-out feathers. I can accept the idea that some species of Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus that lived in colder climates had a coat, because there, it makes sense, they lived in a cold climate, so logically they would help keep insulation. But in a case like T. rex where the environment was so humid that it basically defeated the purpose of a full coat, what's the purpose? |
![]() |
|
| caviar | Oct 9 2013, 01:03 AM Post #179 |
![]() ![]()
|
You see roadrunners and ostriches live in hot areas and they are both feathered. and for the record it have been proved that big ceratopsian had quills and you were arguing about therizinosaurs been unfeathered, th fact that beiapaosaurus was found with feathers actually makes almost all the therizinosaurs fluffy
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 9 2013, 01:24 AM Post #180 |
![]() ![]()
|
Oh, Beipiaosaurus had feathers? I apologize, i was not aware of that. And i like to see this so-called "Proof" that all ceratopsids were quilled. And about roadrunners and ostriches, at least in their case, they're BIRDS, it's genetically hardwired into the coding of their DNA, even when it doesn't make sense to have them. But whereas in the case of dinosaurs, where nature was still working out all the bugs, so dinosaurs were kind of a first try on the basic concept of birds (Except for the part where many of their characteristics, aside form a similar biology, are nothing like birds )
|
![]() |
|
| 4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups












