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 (256,217 Views)
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Incinerox
Jul 19 2015, 06:09 AM

> T.rex managed to become the ONLY large predator in Laramidia just by being more badass than everything else around it.
I don't think we can say that, as we will never know the total fossil diversity due the fact that, well not everything fossilizes. Maybe there are other predators, and prey and whatever and we just haven't found them.

Now, we can say that T.Rex was the only KNOWN multiton superpredator from that time and place, and was probably one of the mist influential anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

To be fair, given how much we've managed to get from Hell Creek (multiple mummified Edmontosaurus, literal tons of triceratops, a huge collection of T. rex specimens etc.), you'd think if there was a second large predator there, we'd have found one by now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Incinerox
Jul 20 2015, 10:05 PM
To be fair, given how much we've managed to get from Hell Creek (multiple mummified Edmontosaurus, literal tons of triceratops, a huge collection of T. rex specimens etc.), you'd think if there was a second large predator there, we'd have found one by now.
Well that may not entirely be true if you look in the Morrison formation we find that the dominant predator is Allosaurus yet we find three other giant carnivores living in the land but there fossils are rare. If there was another giant carnivore it would likely have been smaller but much more rare perhaps existing in the lands the T Rex did not occupy like the deep South or Far East. Keep in mind we discovered Anzu last year and while nonsignificant it shows that there are still more fossils waiting to be turned up so perhaps there's something else lurking in the dirt that we just haven't found yet.
Edited by BossMan, Jake, Jul 20 2015, 10:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinoBear
Member Avatar


Anzu was known about for a long time, just was nameless for quite some time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

DinoBear
Jul 20 2015, 10:23 PM
Anzu was known about for a long time, just was nameless for quite some time.
It was...? Well guess that makes me the fool
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Incinerox
Jul 20 2015, 10:05 PM
To be fair, given how much we've managed to get from Hell Creek (multiple mummified Edmontosaurus, literal tons of triceratops, a huge collection of T. rex specimens etc.), you'd think if there was a second large predator there, we'd have found one by now.
But hell creek doesn't represent the entirety of laramidia and lets not forget that even the most well preserved of places still preserve less than 1% of its fauna.

I'm not saying there was other stuff or whatever, i'm saying that we can't (and most likely will never) know for sure, so we can't say it was the only predator.

remember, for something to become a fossil it has to die under very specific conditions over VERY specific terrain and go trough even more specific processes, considering the fact that very few animals have the chance to go trough all that and very few places provide the conditions for such and we have a huge gap on the extinct animal record thats not covered by fossils.
Edited by Yi Qi, Jul 20 2015, 11:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

You say all this like I don't know this... ; ;

To be fair, yeah I exaggerated when I said "all of Laramidia" but for Hell Creek and associated formations, there is a consistent lack of other superpredators until you get as far south as Ojo Alamo. It might literally be the "Arctic" before you see a change in fauna going northwards. At LEAST Saskatchewan. There is a recurring trend in large, multiton animals in these formations, and competing superpredators is so far not one of them.

Ok so, you know how it's really annoying when people don't put feathers on a distinctly feathered animal? Am I the only one who gets more annoyed when people put feathers on animals we KNOW to be scaled or bare skinned?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Incinerox
Jul 21 2015, 01:11 AM
Ok so, you know how it's really annoying when people don't put feathers on a distinctly feathered animal? Am I the only one who gets more annoyed when people put feathers on animals we KNOW to be scaled or bare skinned?
Ohh boy i agree in all aspects, feathered limusauruses are still rampant, despite their closest relatives having you know, freaking ARMORED crocodile-like skin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathius Tyra
Member Avatar
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life

Posted Image

Quote:
 
In recent months an internet friend of mine, SimKoning, has shown to be as familiar with the developmental biology of integument as I am, and someone with whom I can adequately discuss the evolution of integument in archosaurs. A topic of which I am extremely interested.

Today he proposed the possibility that within our parameters, it is possible that feathered and unfeathered variants of the same species (perhaps more plausibly of the same genus) existed at the same time, even on the same continent, in different environments. The range of Tyrannosaurus for example, seems to stretch all the way from the hot, dry, Alamosaurus-flattened uplands of southern Laramidia all the way to the far north which was confined to total darkness for large portions of the year.

In regards to this, Sim challenged: "Thinking about this, what I would love to see is a speculative depiction of northern and southern T. rex subspecies, with the former being "wooly" and the latter being scaly.

The scaly sauropod hunter from the south and the grizzly northerner."

I decided to oblige. Call it repayment to Sim for giving me someone to discuss the evo-devo of archosaur integument with.


I kind of feeling that this concept is wrong....

The maker of this drawing stated that the northern variant of T. rex could have been covered in feather while the southern variant covered in scale.

However, you can't have 2 groups of "same specie" with completely different interguments.... If the southern variant was about to be bald, it should be "nake leathery" skin due to the loss of feather, not scaly.
Edited by Mathius Tyra, Jul 21 2015, 01:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Mathius Tyra
Jul 21 2015, 01:51 AM
Posted Image

Quote:
 
In recent months an internet friend of mine, SimKoning, has shown to be as familiar with the developmental biology of integument as I am, and someone with whom I can adequately discuss the evolution of integument in archosaurs. A topic of which I am extremely interested.

Today he proposed the possibility that within our parameters, it is possible that feathered and unfeathered variants of the same species (perhaps more plausibly of the same genus) existed at the same time, even on the same continent, in different environments. The range of Tyrannosaurus for example, seems to stretch all the way from the hot, dry, Alamosaurus-flattened uplands of southern Laramidia all the way to the far north which was confined to total darkness for large portions of the year.

In regards to this, Sim challenged: "Thinking about this, what I would love to see is a speculative depiction of northern and southern T. rex subspecies, with the former being "wooly" and the latter being scaly.

The scaly sauropod hunter from the south and the grizzly northerner."

I decided to oblige. Call it repayment to Sim for giving me someone to discuss the evo-devo of archosaur integument with.


I kind of feeling that this concept is wrong....

The maker of this drawing stated that the northern variant of T. rex could have been covered in feather while the southern variant covered in scale.

However, you can't have 2 groups of "same specie" with completely different interguments.... If the southern variant was about to be bald, it should be "nake leathery" skin due to the loss of feather, not scaly.
This is wrong by many reasons, as for why, i think i already stated them like one thousand times so please scroll up and maybe check some old posts for why this is absurd.

Edited by Yi Qi, Jul 21 2015, 05:27 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


BossMan, Jake
Jul 20 2015, 10:21 PM
Incinerox
Jul 20 2015, 10:05 PM
To be fair, given how much we've managed to get from Hell Creek (multiple mummified Edmontosaurus, literal tons of triceratops, a huge collection of T. rex specimens etc.), you'd think if there was a second large predator there, we'd have found one by now.
Well that may not entirely be true if you look in the Morrison formation we find that the dominant predator is Allosaurus yet we find three other giant carnivores living in the land but there fossils are rare.
The environment of the Morrison could support dozens of giant sauropods, it's no wonder there could be so many predators.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luca9108
Member Avatar
Master of Dinosaurs

All these guys, who think that Dilophosaurus has a frill and spit poison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleodude
Member Avatar
ex-Krampus

I honestly thought JW was the worst representation of Dimorphodon... I was so extremely wrong...
Spoiler: click to toggle

At least JW added pycnofibers instead of making a victorian era mistake of adding feathers, there would be no way that just a different species would change it's body coverings. That would be like a tiger having fish scales and a lion having fur. Let's just hope this kind of design doesn't become a trend or mods come out for realistic models. :implode: :implode:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Paleodude
Jul 21 2015, 08:36 PM
a lion having fur.
Uhh and that'd be incorrect how?

Smartass mode off xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleodude
Member Avatar
ex-Krampus

Yi Qi
Jul 21 2015, 09:38 PM
Paleodude
Jul 21 2015, 08:36 PM
a lion having fur.
Uhh and that'd be incorrect how?

Smartass mode off xD
I was trying to say how wrong it is for different species to have totally different structures.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply