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 (256,148 Views)
babehunter1324
No Avatar


Telmatosaurus and Magyarosaurus coexisted in Hateg, while Pararhabdodon (one of the worst names ever since it was a relative of Tsintaosaurus) and Lirainosaurus/Ampelosaurus coexisted on the land mass situated around the Pyrennes. Meanwhile while Zalmoxes might had coexisted with Hadrosaurines in Hateg, Rhabdodontids were apparently gone in the late Maastrithian from the Pyrennes Island.
Edited by babehunter1324, Jun 2 2016, 05:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathius Tyra
Member Avatar
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life

Don't forget Saurolophus with Opisthocoelicaudia and Nemegtosaurus in Nemegt too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Supersaur
Member Avatar
Diabloceratops

Okay good points but I was mostly focusing on Alamosaurus and that there where less saurapods there than in Argentina
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
babehunter1324
No Avatar


Kritosaurines were quite widespread in South America by the Late Campanian and Maastritchian (they might had reached Antartica too), and we deffinitivelly know a fair ammount of Titanosaurines from that period.

If I had to guess I would say that Hadrosaurines and Titanosaurines didn't mutually exclude each other but may have prefered different habitats. Hadrosaurines sometimes excluded more primitive ornithopods but the presence of Zalmoxes and Telmatosaurus pressumibly at the same time in Hateg island as well as that of Thescelosaurus and Parkosaurus in North America (which like Alamosaurus were probably migrants from the South) proofs that it wasn't always the case.
Edited by babehunter1324, Jun 3 2016, 02:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

I wouldn't exactly say they were widespread yet.

We only have two genera from South America, both from the Late Campanian/Early Maastrichtian. The other kritosaurins are from North America (Southern Laramidia), and one from China.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
babehunter1324
No Avatar


Well. We don't have that much fossil remains from the late Maastritchian of South America, so it's hard to know how well Hadrosauridae were doing at the time. We know they were present at least.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


I don't think small Hypsilophodontid and similar stuff would suffer much competition from giant Hadrosaurs. At worst I could imagine large numbers of hadrosaurs impacting the habitat Hypsies inhabited/used to nest/whatever by destroying all the foliage, but that's what carnivores are there for.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Supersaur
Member Avatar
Diabloceratops

Well the hypsies would be fine but saurapods would eat more than the hadrosaurs leaving less foliage. If anything the hypsies are good but if their where saurapods it would be bad for every speices except very large predators(They eat a lot=less food for other herbivores)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Guat
No Avatar


Supersaur
Jun 3 2016, 08:08 PM
If anything the hypsies are good but if their where saurapods it would be bad for every speices except very large predators(They eat a lot=less food for other herbivores)
This is not the case. Sauropods would most likely eat different plant types than small ornithopods, kind of like how elephants and gazelles aren't eating the exact same thing all of the time so both can coexist. On the contrary of elephants being bad for every other animal, African Forest Elephants are pretty good at dispersing seeds that they get from fruits they eat and African Bush Elephants are great at preventing bush or forests from taking over savannas by breaking up thorn bushes and pulling trees. With that in mind I doubt sauropods or large hadrosaurs would be bad for any other species that is not a large predator. Of course the environmental chances sauropods and large hadrosaurs create are probably not always positive, especially when not controlled, which can be seen in modern megaherbivores like elephants.

Also I doubt that many young sauropods would become adults. While adult sauropods would have few predators, if any, hatchlings would be an excellent meal for a large number of small predators, similar to how hatchling sea turtles are preyed upon a huge amount of predators. This would limit the sauropod population and be benefitial to small carnivores so no. Sauropods are not bad for every animal that is not a large carnivore.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Niche partitioning. Learn it. Love it.

Now, moving on.

I get annoyed by the running trend of Placenamesaurus discovererii. Or Bonefeaturesaurus locationensis.

Almost nothing alive today has that kind of name structure. Why don't extinct species get the same treatment as modern taxa?

Things like Balaur, Alanqa, Lythronax, Megalania. They have genus names which could very well pass for a common name for a living animal. See what I mean?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PrimevalBrony
Member Avatar
Youtuber. Combat robotics fan

As would Yi, although tbh I like saying the full name because it's adorable to say.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathius Tyra
Member Avatar
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life

Well, the problem is there aren't much feature left on fossil to use for making prehistoric animal's name. Something like pattern, color, fur thickness, other visual look are not preserved, so we can't have something like Tyrannosaurus melanostomus or Argentavis rufocephalus.

So, places that they were found, bone structure or the discoverer's name play much more role on their name. Also, many animals today do have place and discoverer's name in their name as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheNotFakeDK
Member Avatar
200% Authentic

Still, there are more creative ways of using descriptive names, like Spiclypeus or Lepidus to name some modern examples.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acinonyx Jubatus
Member Avatar
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!

Mathius Tyra
Jun 4 2016, 11:26 AM
Well, the problem is there aren't much feature left on fossil to use for making prehistoric animal's name. Something like pattern, color, fur thickness, other visual look are not preserved, so we can't have something like Tyrannosaurus melanostomus or Argentavis rufocephalus.

So, places that they were found, bone structure or the discoverer's name play much more role on their name. Also, many animals today do have place and discoverer's name in their name as well.
This is a good point. When all you have of an animal is a quadrate and the lower half of a jugal, the name of the discoverer and where it was found is probably nearly all of the relevant data that can be applied to the name. Though you could still call it something like "Hamartophys enigmatica" (enigmatic missing body).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathius Tyra
Member Avatar
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life

Acinonyx Jubatus
Jun 4 2016, 12:15 PM
Mathius Tyra
Jun 4 2016, 11:26 AM
Well, the problem is there aren't much feature left on fossil to use for making prehistoric animal's name. Something like pattern, color, fur thickness, other visual look are not preserved, so we can't have something like Tyrannosaurus melanostomus or Argentavis rufocephalus.

So, places that they were found, bone structure or the discoverer's name play much more role on their name. Also, many animals today do have place and discoverer's name in their name as well.
This is a good point. When all you have of an animal is a quadrate and the lower half of a jugal, the name of the discoverer and where it was found is probably nearly all of the relevant data that can be applied to the name. Though you could still call it something like "Hamartophys enigmatica" (enigmatic missing body).
That name is gonna be very awkward if more materials are found later anyway. :P
Edited by Mathius Tyra, Jun 4 2016, 03:04 PM.
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