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 (256,458 Views) | |
| TyrantTR | Nov 5 2013, 04:42 PM Post #631 |
![]() ![]()
|
No it has not. If you are referring to the dueling dinosaurs specimen it was only ever "analyzed" by vocal nano supporters. There is little reason for a nanotyrannus to exist in its ecosystem as any niche it filled would have been identical to juvenile tyrannosaurs. Any dependencies in morphology between alleged nanotyrannus specimens and adult tyrannosaurs can be explained easily with ontogeny. Only way this debate will be truly settled however is by getting an exact age from the bones themselves. Unfortunately no one wants to chop up any fossils. |
![]() |
|
| Ignacio | Nov 5 2013, 05:04 PM Post #632 |
![]()
Ex Corrupt Staff
![]()
|
Sorry to step in, since i enjoy reading this discussion but i don't have enough knowledge to usually participate in them. But... i recall watching in some documentary or YT video, or reading somewhere that the Nanotyrannus bones had been examined to determinate their age and see if they were in fact young Tyranosaurus... correct me if i'm wrong but i think that study was made. |
![]() |
|
| TyrantTR | Nov 5 2013, 05:44 PM Post #633 |
![]() ![]()
|
No study that I am aware of has done that. I could always be wrong, but I took the time to look it up and still haven't found anything suggesting such a study was ever conducted. Documentaries can make all sorts of claims, it'll take some citation before I buy this particular one. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 5 2013, 06:29 PM Post #634 |
![]() ![]()
|
Sorry, I was replying to MarxRaptor.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Nov 5 2013, 06:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 5 2013, 06:42 PM Post #635 |
![]()
|
But wasn't there some sort of bone crest hat the nano had? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 5 2013, 06:55 PM Post #636 |
![]()
★
![]()
|
There was also a little "hole" type thing in the back of the bottom jaw of both specimens. It is identical in both specimens, so some think this indicates being a different species as no other tyrannosaurids IIRC have it. |
![]() |
|
| TyrantTR | Nov 5 2013, 07:52 PM Post #637 |
![]() ![]()
|
To respond to both remarks, nothing about ontogeny indicates any animals morphology remains completely consistent as it ages. In fact often times it is quite the opposite. If we defined new species by each minor distinction a specimen may have, the entire growth series of triceratops would be divided into species. The alleged nanotyrannus specimens show a consistency with the ontogeny of other known juvenile tyrannosaurs. Edited by TyrantTR, Nov 5 2013, 07:53 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Meerkatmatt2 | Nov 6 2013, 03:04 AM Post #638 |
![]() ![]()
|
We need a pack of prehistoric birds for ZT2! |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 6 2013, 03:29 PM Post #639 |
![]() ![]()
|
Related to the above, I'm annoyed by the way JP fanboys categorize how interesting prehistoric animals are by power alone. So T. rex "iz awshum cuz it pwns everywun", but ornithopods "r lame cuz dey r wimpy plant-eeterz". There's more ways to judge dinosaur coolness than how powerful or ferocious they are. Add that to the list of "reasons JP fanboys deserve to die". |
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Nov 6 2013, 03:34 PM Post #640 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
Am I the only one who found the movie Jurassic Park honestly really lame? I mean... why is it so popular? All of the supporting characters are a C- at best, the animals are just ridiculous, and those horrible whiny children that they for some reason didn't let get eaten even though everyone watching was hoping they would. I don't get why it's such a "cherished cinematic brilliance" or whatever. Maybe it's just me.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 6 2013, 03:38 PM Post #641 |
![]() ![]()
|
I thought Jurassic Park was a good movie and greatly contributed to the current popularity of dinosaurs, though it has given rise to some of the worst fanboys in existence. Though the book is actually a lot better, I recommend you read it Sheather. |
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Nov 6 2013, 03:42 PM Post #642 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
I own and have read both it and its sequel and greatly prefer the both of them. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 6 2013, 03:43 PM Post #643 |
![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, I think the movies should've stuck more to the template of the books.
|
![]() |
|
| Jules | Nov 6 2013, 03:45 PM Post #644 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Well, that's normal ![]() You can't expect anyone to make a film from a book and then have a better film. The odds of that happening are of 1% approximatively. |
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Nov 6 2013, 03:46 PM Post #645 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
I'd also find a modernized remake really interesting, with up-to-date animals and such, though I doubt it'd be popular. And it might not have much plot if the 25 pound fluffy velociraptor gets out and just runs away in fear of the humans, is unable to open doors, and just acts like a bird.
|
![]() |
|
| 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



















