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 (256,149 Views) | |
|
|
May 28 2016, 06:12 PM Post #5266 |
![]() ![]()
|
Mahi Mahi don't just use counter shading to hunt, though. Their scales are highly specialized to bend light to help hide their appearance, hence why they become bright yellow and green when excited but are usually light blue. I HIGHLY doubt that Tylosaurus had the same muscle control of its scales as a mahi mahi, and I know their scales were not designed the same way. |
![]() |
|
| heliosphoros | May 28 2016, 08:16 PM Post #5267 |
![]() ![]()
|
Plus Trucidocynodon is a great Triassic hurrah for synapsids. |
![]() |
|
| Mathius Tyra | May 28 2016, 08:35 PM Post #5268 |
![]()
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life
![]()
|
I agree with you but honestly, there are many people that claim to like paleontology or having some knowledge than average people, that only care about the famous feature like dinosaurs, pterosaurs and major group of marine reptiles. True that Triassic creatures are so diverse and fasinating but when comparing them to super stars like dinosaurs from Jurassic and Cretaceous, they are not as recognizable. They also don't get much attention in media as well. There are like only recent 3 documentaries that depict creatures from Triassic, starting from WWD(Not gonna count older docs or unfamous because people barely remember them anyway.) and I think there are none that ever been featured in movies. (There are some in Primeval series tho.) |
![]() |
|
| heliosphoros | May 28 2016, 11:16 PM Post #5269 |
![]() ![]()
|
Turns out it was also one of the first attempts at cursoriality on the part of synapsids, as if it wasn't badass enough. Keep in mind that running theropods already existed when it lived. |
![]() |
|
| BossAggron | May 28 2016, 11:51 PM Post #5270 |
|
Formerly Dilophoraptor
![]()
|
And it was about the size of a freaking leopard |
![]() |
|
| babehunter1324 | May 29 2016, 03:55 AM Post #5271 |
![]()
|
Cynognathus is usually quote to be 1 meter long, what not many know is that is only the lenght of the head and torse, with tail included it would had been at least 1.5 meters long and it's skull was about 30 cm long, larger than a spotted hyeana. Considering that it predated Theropods and most large Archosauromorphs it is pretty likely Cynognathus was an apex predator in it's envioriment. |
![]() |
|
| Supersaur | May 29 2016, 10:54 AM Post #5272 |
|
Diabloceratops
![]()
|
In fact one of my favourite extinct animal lines is from the Triassic (pseudoseuchians) I also probably butchered that.Also how is the triassic boring? Its awesome! Edited by Supersaur, May 29 2016, 12:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | May 30 2016, 09:09 PM Post #5273 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
Despite the almost overwhelming number of specimens (and photos thereof) I couldn't find any high resolution photos of the shoulder for Yanornis, and the only skeletal that doesn't obscure the shoulder region entirely is by Peters. And even that is frankly very confusing and strangely articulated. I feel so incompetent having to infer the appearance of known(?) materials. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jun 2 2016, 10:23 AM Post #5274 |
![]() ![]()
|
People who still hold the misconception that sauropods were extinct by the late Cretaceous. They weren't even rare, titanosaurs were still among the most successful and dominant herbivores of the time. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jun 2 2016, 10:38 AM Post #5275 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Only in the southern hemisphere. They got the crap end of the stick in the north. |
![]() |
|
| heliosphoros | Jun 2 2016, 11:29 AM Post #5276 |
![]() ![]()
|
Well, they were still present abundantly in Asia and Europe. In North America, they were probably rare, given that only Alamosaurus is known. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jun 2 2016, 12:56 PM Post #5277 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Present, but nowhere near dominant. |
![]() |
|
| babehunter1324 | Jun 2 2016, 01:11 PM Post #5278 |
![]()
|
Well, in Europe they seem to held out without much of a hitch in the Campanian and onto the end of the Maastritchian, unlike other groups like Nodosaurids or Rhabdodontidae which apparenlty were declining rapidly by then, probably do to ecological changes and the success of Hadrosaurines.
Edited by babehunter1324, Jun 2 2016, 01:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Supersaur | Jun 2 2016, 03:24 PM Post #5279 |
|
Diabloceratops
![]()
|
Well titanosaurs probably didn't want to live there due to the hadrosaurs being the large grazers and they didn't need another so they probably moved down south where they where in lesser numbers(the hadrosaurs) Also probably due to large preadtors evolving in the north. T.rex for example. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jun 2 2016, 05:28 PM Post #5280 |
![]() ![]()
|
T. rex (or at least a similar large tyrannosaurid) is actually known from the same formations as Alamosaurus too. Pretty sure hadrosaurs were there as well. |
![]() |
|
| 3 users reading this topic (3 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















