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
Extinct Animal Questions
Topic Started: Nov 26 2013, 10:24 PM (193,371 Views)
Paleop
Member Avatar
Paleopterix

is it possible some non avian dinosaurs were gynandromorphs?

for those who don't know what a gynandromorph is
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

It's possible, yeh. It's been found as far apart in animals as birds and butterflies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luca9108
Member Avatar
Master of Dinosaurs

BossMan, Jake
Aug 14 2015, 07:45 PM
Flish
Aug 14 2015, 07:01 PM
His Triceratops theory was wrong, yes. We have juvenile Torosaurus remains, which suggest they can't be the same animal.
No not that the one he proposed in dinosaurs decoded
You mean that?
Posted Image
I think the thing with the different horns in different ages is right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Flish
Aug 14 2015, 07:01 PM
His Triceratops theory was wrong, yes. We have juvenile Torosaurus remains, which suggest they can't be the same animal.
You are correct, but I'm compelled to tell you your reasoning is not.

For a start, not only do we not have any confirmed Torosaurus juveniles at all, but because the ONLY feature we have that can distinguish between Torosaurus and Triceratops is the frill, we don't even know if we'll ever be able to identify a baby Torosaurus even if we were handed one.

On top of that, because the only distinguishable feature Torosaurus has is its frill, any large chasmosaurine remains from Hell Creek/Lance/Scollard/whatever are immediately assigned to Triceratops unless there's a skull to prove otherwise. And this is where the confusion began in the first place.

So how did we solve the huge mess?

The topic's covered quite nicely on the Saurian website.

But more specifically, it comes down to this:
Posted Image

A chronological arrangement of ALL known Triceratops and Torosaurus specimens. The upper region (the very end of the Cretaceous) has Saurian's trike, T. prorsus. The middle third is T. horridus, everyone's favourite. Now the bottom part is a bit vague because of the lack of data.

Except the very VERY bottom two, MOR 1122 and MOR 981 are the ONLY two confirmed Torosaurus in Hell Creek. So genuine Torosaurus was a thing, and it was older geologically than Triceratops.

But to sum up what the link talks about, what was apparently going on was that you start off with a more standard frilled chasmosaurine (your Torosaurus), and over time, the species develops the holes in its frill later and later in life (resulting in your thin sections of already adult T. horridus's frills) until it just simply stops happening at all by the time you get to T. prorsus.
Edited by Incinerox, Aug 15 2015, 03:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


Ah, alright. That makes sense. And you are correct there are no Torosaurus juveniles, but at least, according to Wikipedia, there is one specimen (YPM 1831) that was not fully grown yet, which is what I was admittedly wrong referring to. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Flish
Aug 15 2015, 12:35 PM
Ah, alright. That makes sense. And you are correct there are no Torosaurus juveniles, but at least, according to Wikipedia, there is one specimen (YPM 1831) that was not fully grown yet, which is what I was admittedly wrong referring to. :P
That my friend is why you should never fully trust Wikipedia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


What? Wikipedia does not call the specimen a juvenile, that was me who did it. Please don't tell me not to trust Wikipedia when you don't know the situation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Flish
Aug 16 2015, 12:06 PM
What? Wikipedia does not call the specimen a juvenile, that was me who did it. Please don't tell me not to trust Wikipedia when you don't know the situation.
Ok did not think you would get your feelings hurt by that. But moving on...so I found out that everyone's favorite abelisaur Ekrixinatosaurs was not as big as recently suggested only being 25 feet long. So if that's the case what is the largest CONFIRMED species? I'm not interested in the Kenyan species as it still has no name or research done with it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


I believe the largest confirmed species currently is Carnotaurus, ignoring fragmentary material.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acinonyx Jubatus
Member Avatar
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!

What kind of evidence do we have for integument, or the lack of it, in non-mammalian synapsids, including basal synapsids such as pelycosaurs and ophiacodontids?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

I think it was discussed earlier in this topic.

It seems like at least the pelycosaurs had rat-tail like skin on their bellies and tails.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


With the backside being leathery like a rhino IIRC.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Why is this little guy so special? And I read the article I still don't get why
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/science/new-find-hints-at-more-feathered-dinosaurs-.html?_r=0&referrer=
Edited by BossMan, Jake, Aug 16 2015, 11:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Guat
No Avatar


BossMan, Jake
Aug 16 2015, 11:18 PM
Why is this little guy so special? And I read the article I still don't get why
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/science/new-find-hints-at-more-feathered-dinosaurs-.html?_r=0&referrer=
Because it showed how feathers were on ornithopods, the other known feathered ornithischians were more closely related to Ceratopsians IIRC.
Edited by Guat, Aug 17 2015, 06:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Kulindadromeus was actually a basal cerapod IIRC, not an ornithopod.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Aug 17 2015, 03:36 AM.
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