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 (256,443 Views) | |
| extremos | Nov 18 2013, 01:39 PM Post #856 |
![]()
Where's Mr Pig?
![]()
|
I disagree, for I consider them as having different meanings, since for me T-Rex is just a nickname, while T. rex is the abreviation of the scientific name |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 18 2013, 02:09 PM Post #857 |
|
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.
![]()
|
Yep plus Tyrannosaurus Rex is just to long to say and nobody who knows nothing about dinosaurus does T.Rex they use the common nick name everybody kinda uses or T-Rex. I use T-Rex because I call dinosaurs with long names by sections of their name like Carcharodontosaurus is Carchar or similar. So giving a dinosaur a nickname really is nothing really. You can call it T.Rex when others can call it T-Rex. T.Rex like said above is a shorten name version of Tyrannosaurus while filling a similar purpose is T-Rex. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Nov 18 2013, 02:10 PM Post #858 |
![]() ![]()
|
plus when you are talking there's no difference between T-rex and T. rex
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 18 2013, 02:19 PM Post #859 |
|
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.
![]()
|
That is exactly right my friend I mean really are you going to say "T dot rex" or "T-/.rex" instead. |
![]() |
|
| Okeanos | Nov 18 2013, 05:00 PM Post #860 |
![]() ![]()
|
It depends on the context, if you're talking with normal people about dinosaurs I find "T-Rex" ok, since I normally use it to describe the media's portrayal of a "cold-blooded, merciless killing machine which could kill everything, was scaly and loved killing things" which I normally distinguish as a different thing to the actual animal. If you're talking about the animal that lived 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous, that just lived like a normal predator (no killing everything in sight and constant battling) use its binomial name in the correct format, T. rex. |
![]() |
|
| Stan The Man | Nov 18 2013, 06:13 PM Post #861 |
![]()
Honorary Party Member
![]()
|
I just only use T. rex or Tyrannosaurus, nicknames are overrated- hell, I'll even use Micropachycephalosaurus instead of Micropachy. |
![]() |
|
| DinoBear | Nov 18 2013, 07:39 PM Post #862 |
![]()
|
This |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 19 2013, 01:03 PM Post #863 |
![]() ![]()
|
I'm annoyed when theropod dinosaurs are treated as slavering murder machines that killed everything in sight. They were just normal predators trying to scrape out a living in a world of overdefenced prey items. Likewise, ornithischians and sauropods weren't the "heroic protectors and guardians of the Mesozoic world" that they're so often portrayed as. They were normal animals too, just munching on ferns and trying to stay off the menu. |
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Nov 19 2013, 01:05 PM Post #864 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
Now Cyborg, you should know all carnivores are evil monsters preying on the cute and cuddly plant-eaters. Have you never seen Land Before Time? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 19 2013, 04:45 PM Post #865 |
![]() ![]()
|
The theory that Triceratops didn't exist and was just a young Torosaurus. if that's so, THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FRILL SHAPES?!! |
![]() |
|
| Ignacio | Nov 19 2013, 04:53 PM Post #866 |
![]()
Ex Corrupt Staff
![]()
|
Actually, since Triceratops was the first of those two to be discovered, the one that doesn't exists acording to that theory is Torosaurus, not Triceratops. And they explained the differences in the frills saying that triceratops was an younger stage and torosaurus was a mature stage and that frill morph through time. But i think the theory has been disproven... or at least the evidence Horner and parterner use to support it are not very strong and most of the other paleontologist disagree with them. I guess Gorsh or Iben will be able to explain it to you better than i, but that is what i remember about it (correct me if anything i said is wrong or outdated )
|
![]() |
|
| Similis | Nov 19 2013, 05:01 PM Post #867 |
![]() ![]()
|
Ontogeny. There are however other morphological differences, as far as my memory goes, so they remain separate. And it was Torosaurus that would end up not existing, due to Trike being the proper name. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Nov 19 2013, 06:24 PM Post #868 |
![]() ![]()
|
from what i remember from the case, the Torosaurus skull they used were actually younger than the Triceratops they studied. there's also the fact that we have more fossilized skulls of Trike, which fits the fact tat most animals die (and thus are more likely to fossilize) in the young stages of their lives, but that could also be explained by the fact that Torosaurus skull it's obviously more fragile and harder to preserve. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 19 2013, 08:00 PM Post #869 |
|
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.
![]()
|
Yeah it was something about having to do about that the animal would lose bone mass or have a strange frill morph, I mean we discussed that awhile ago around the learner section of the topic, I think it was joined in link with Nannotyrannus and another thought trio of age, of like Dracorex and Phacy and Stygi, so yeah either in this topic or another older topic we had discussed about it, maybe something with the Montana dueling dinosaurus... |
![]() |
|
| TyrantTR | Nov 19 2013, 08:29 PM Post #870 |
![]() ![]()
|
If torosaurus is not a more mature form of triceratops, than this would make triceratops the only chasmosaur to not have developed fenestration on the frill. An unlikely scenario. Plus two large similarly adapted animals with the same diet in the same ecosystem does not make any sense. Plus ontogeny explains any and all of the morphological differences between torosaurus and triceratops. We know bone loss happens in ontogeny because sauropods lose bone in their osteoderms as they age as well. All in all I have yet to see a single case that convinces me torosaurus is anything but a fully matured triceratops. |
![]() |
|
| 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


















(correct me if anything i said is wrong or outdated )

