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
Favorite Dinosaur Reconstructions
Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 09:05 PM (305,539 Views)
Furka
Member Avatar


Ahem, I'd strongly appreciate if this ended here, the discussion is getting too personal for my taste.

Also heliosphoros, remember the double posting rule, next time just edit your previous post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heliosphoros
Member Avatar


Flish
Jul 3 2016, 05:33 PM
I don't care if they're easy to find or if you quoted them, as the person making the claim it's your job to provide evidence for your claims, not mine to go look for them. It's common debating etiquette.

And yes, I'm aware most Triconodont teeth are not similar to Insectivore teeth (Which shrews aren't even exclusively or in many cases, such as water shrews, primarily, particularly larger ones which would be similar in size to Ichthyoconodon), However the only thing I could find on Ichthyoconodon teeth specifically was a small paragraph from a paper talking about how its teeth are unusual compared to other Triconodont teeth. source


Scroll several pages up, until you reach 231.

As for being "unusual", this was also before Gaetano et al 2011, where connections with Volaticotherium, Jugulator and Argentoconodon were exhibited.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

The paper you cited actually only describes enough information to prove the animals corpse wasn't deposited overtime by a river. The lack of erosion doesn't disprove the idea that this animal was suddenly dragged to sea.
Quote:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyoconodon
"Unlike other mammal teeth, including other contemporary teeth such as those of Hahnodon, which show some degree of degradation, Ichthyoconodon teeth are not significantly modified, ruling out the possibility that the animal was carried over from river deposits. This means that the mammal either died in situ or was only carried over for a short distance"
It could have been anything from a storm, to a particularly disoriented animal swimming away from shore, or even regurgitated or dropped portions of a larger airborne predators meal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Wouldn't the latter case still imply some degree of erosion to the remains tho ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

Furka
Jul 4 2016, 11:43 AM
Wouldn't the latter case still imply some degree of erosion to the remains tho ?
I was just spit-balling really. I was thinking something more along the lines of a pterosaur dislodging uncomfortable pieces of prey caught in its throat or bill than of a partially digested meal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vikingman101
No Avatar


CyborgIguana
Nov 9 2013, 06:23 PM
Though some of it is slighly outdated, I'm quite fond of Luis Rey's artwork.

Dr. Hax: Meh...I'm not a big fan of his bald tyrannosaurs. Tyrannosaurs DEFINITELY had feathers.
Ya know, ya never know. None of us have seen a dinosaur before have we? If you have then tell me where. If you haven't, then the word definitely is not something you should use.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


1. That comment is literally over THREE YEARS old and your posting in response to it just now is quite pointless.
2. True, "definitely" was perhaps an overstatement (I'll remind you that comment was posted by a slightly different me), but evidence from phylogenetic bracketing still indicates a high probability that tyrannosaurids were at least partially feathered.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Jul 6 2016, 11:33 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

To be fair on the guy, there have been topics where I've nearly replied to posts from 2012 by accident too.

Also, to keep on topic, how about some GLIDING DREPANOSAURS, HM?

Posted Image
Edited by Incinerox, Jul 6 2016, 12:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Vikingman101 there's no need to sound that rude towards other members, no matter if you disagree. I suggest you to be more careful about your future posts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jon Sam
Member Avatar


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


Not a fan of the outdated "fishing" reconstruction for Dilo, but the colors are really pretty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heliosphoros
Member Avatar


Not a reconstruction but important:

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

That Dilophosaurus...is that by Michelethesea? The art style looks very similar
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgDino
No Avatar


Posted Image

The Tyrannosaurus Wikipedia page has a new main life reconstruction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


OH HELL YES!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply