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 (256,422 Views) | |
| CyborgIguana | Dec 30 2013, 05:00 PM Post #1171 |
![]() ![]()
|
Don't forget every pterosaur being grouped into either Pterodactylus, Pteranodon, or Ornithocheirus. |
![]() |
|
| philly | Dec 30 2013, 07:11 PM Post #1172 |
![]()
|
Actually the park's Velociraptors are referred as mongoliensis and are correctly sized, IIRC. At least they are so in the versions of the book I own. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Dec 30 2013, 07:16 PM Post #1173 |
![]() ![]()
|
The skeleton that Grant digs up in Montana is a Deinonychus, but the raptors in the park itself are Velociraptor mongoliensis. extremos: I've also wondered why Cearadactylus was present in the book if all Hammond's digs were in the northern hemisphere. Maybe that's why the movies thought it more fitting to replace it with Pteranodon. Edited by CyborgIguana, Dec 30 2013, 07:20 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Furka | Dec 30 2013, 07:35 PM Post #1174 |
![]() ![]()
|
are you sure it was a Deinonychus ? because if i remember correctly, Grant found it in the same strata of the Maiasaura colony ...
my version of the book has larger raptors, but it could easily be a translation mistake.
I'd rather think they've choosen it because it's better known and more striking in appereance. |
![]() |
|
| extremos | Dec 30 2013, 08:33 PM Post #1175 |
![]()
Where's Mr Pig?
![]()
|
Well philly, I think that is your version, because in my version (Which is in English and therefore has no possible translation mistakes) the raptors are 3 to 4 feet tall and Grant himself says that Deinonychus had been reclassified into Velociraptor. Also, Grant's dig is really weird, because the raptor (Be it Deinonychus or Velociraptor) is found in a place which used to be the Nesting Grounds for Maiasauras, so whether it's Deinonychus or Velociraptor it's still in the wrong place. Also, I've got these from Wikipedia: "Actually, the dinosaurs portrayed in the film as "Velociraptors" are almost identical to the real life Deinonychus, which is a totally different species. It is speculated that this incorrect portrayal came about because of mislabelling of Deinonychus as a subspecies of Velociraptor in the 1988 American book, Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, whose author, Gregory Paul, is credited as an inspiration by Crichton at the end of his first novel." And: "Mentioned by Tim as a prey item for Deinonychus (told by Grant that Deinonychus was reclassified as a Velociraptor)." |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Dec 30 2013, 09:03 PM Post #1176 |
![]() ![]()
|
It was identified as "Velociraptor" antirrhopus by Grant. So yes, it was Deinonychus.
|
![]() |
|
| Similis | Jan 1 2014, 06:21 AM Post #1177 |
![]() ![]()
|
http://www.nature.com/news/feathers-were-the-exception-rather-than-the-rule-for-dinosaurs-1.14379 People who write articles like this, while also ignoring the evidence pointing otherwise. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jan 1 2014, 07:01 AM Post #1178 |
![]() ![]()
|
There is, of course, evidence that multiple dinosaur groups were scaly (or at least covered in hardened feathers that we humans would recognize as scales) but that doesn't mean that the common ancestor of dinosaurs couldn't have been feathered. True, feathered dinosaurs aren't the rule, but they're hardly the exception either considering all the evidence pointing towards most coelurosaurian theropods being fluffy. |
![]() |
|
| Meerkatmatt2 | Jan 1 2014, 08:32 AM Post #1179 |
![]() ![]()
|
Well, I kind of agree with them, but the herodontosaurs, pachcephlosaurs, cerotopsians and all the Coelurosaurian therapods had either feathers or quills. Also I read the abstract to the paper on leaneasauria tail, apparently it is not an ornithopod, rather a late surviving Herodontosaur, after all the quills were not on the original specimen. In other words, I Will only believe a group is feathered, when a member from that group is found to be feathered Edited by Meerkatmatt2, Jan 1 2014, 08:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| extremos | Jan 1 2014, 10:08 AM Post #1180 |
![]()
Where's Mr Pig?
![]()
|
And once more there's T-Rex... ![]() Anyways, wasn't Psittacosaurus a member of Marginocephalia? |
![]() |
|
| DinoBear | Jan 1 2014, 11:17 AM Post #1181 |
![]()
|
I'm surprised no article has taken note that that filamentous structures are rather unlikely to evolve 6 times throughout Ornithodira. I think that it makes more sense that the common ancestor of Ornithodira had some sort of feather-like structures covering it's body, and then said structures were either lost or expanded upon in various lineages. |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Jan 1 2014, 12:21 PM Post #1182 |
![]() ![]()
|
Would you mind clearing what a "Group" is for you? There's evidence for the presence of filamentous structures in Coelurosauria as a whole (and it's a rule that this clade should be restored with feathers), but we, as of yet, don't know how deep filaments were rooted in Theropoda (won't touch the subject of 'feathery' Dilophosaurus imprint because people seem to prefer it to be the foliage imprint lined with dinosaur's body). Sauropods all we know had scales. Basal ornithischians are known to be feathered (heterodontosaurs), but there's also evidence of presence of fuzz in siberian Neornithischian that wasn't revealed to be named yet iirc. (neornithischia = ornithopods + marginocephalians).
|
![]() |
|
| Okeanos | Jan 1 2014, 01:43 PM Post #1183 |
![]() ![]()
|
No Machairodont skin samples have ever been found so I guess Smilodon had scales too then? The 'this group hasn't been found with feathers therefore they can't be feathered' logic isn't always sound. Using the example above, we'd think Smilodon had fur because most cats have fur, right? It's the 'basic integument' of mammals, and those without it are the exception, and not the rule. It is most likely Smilodon did have fur. That's what's hard about dinosaurs and feathers, we're not sure what the 'basic integument' of dinosaurs is. It's a somewhat grey area in Palaeontology, but most people are inclined to say that scales are the rule, with feathers being the exception. (I personally think it's because evidence of scales arose first, which would make sense. If they hadn't found anything to doubt scaled dinosaurs yet, then dinosaurs would have been thought of as forever scaly) However as more genera from different dinosaur groups are found with an integument other than scales (be it feathers, or quills etc.) it's becoming less clear which of the two integuments was the basal one, which the other arose from. Have you ever thought about if the dinosaur's common ancestor was feathered? Almost everyone thinks of it the other way round, that feathers evolved from scales. However, a recent discovery (which I'm sure Gorsh will happily link you to) found bird's scales actually came from feathers, which indicates the possibility of a feathered common ancestor. I'm not saying 'feathers are the rule scales are the exception #feathers5eva' or anything, but I think it'd be good if you didn't assume scales are the norm (and yes I know Smilodon's not a true cat )*realises he posted a couple of paragraphs on something not intended to be controversial* *feels bad* |
![]() |
|
| DinoBear | Jan 1 2014, 02:00 PM Post #1184 |
![]()
|
Smilodon is a real cat, as Machairodontinae (AKA saber toothed cats) is a subfamily of Felidae. In other words, it's as much a cat as a tiger is. |
![]() |
|
| Okeanos | Jan 1 2014, 02:03 PM Post #1185 |
![]() ![]()
|
I thought that Smilodon was a true cat originally too, but iirc there was some disagreement on the placement of Machairodontinae and whether or not it belongs in Felidae, so I wasn't sure on the exact placement of it. (and I didn't mean that last sentence, it was intended more as a joke because of the unsure placement) Edited by Okeanos, Jan 1 2014, 05:28 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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













There's evidence for the presence of filamentous structures in Coelurosauria as a whole (and it's a rule that this clade should be restored with feathers), but we, as of yet, don't know how deep filaments were rooted in Theropoda (won't touch the subject of 'feathery' Dilophosaurus imprint because people seem to prefer it to be the foliage imprint lined with dinosaur's body). Sauropods all we know had scales. Basal ornithischians are known to be feathered (heterodontosaurs), but there's also evidence of presence of fuzz in siberian Neornithischian that wasn't revealed to be named yet iirc. (neornithischia = ornithopods + marginocephalians).

