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 (193,482 Views)
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Yes, I've seen a lot of those pictures. Not bad, for the most part. I meant more media-wise than paleo-art wise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


Ulquiorra
Mar 17 2014, 06:33 PM
After watching Clash of the Dinosaurs, it mentioned that all dinosaurs have a wish bone, hollow bones and air sacks in their lungs all traits that modern birds have today, yet if this is true with non-avian dinosaurs, like hadrosaurs and sauropods, could it be possible that they also had feathers of some kind?

Its left me with images in my head of a brachisaurus looking like a giant four legged ostrich.
Wishbone isn't exclusively avian, presence of wishbone (even on its early stages of development) doesn't indicate presence of feathers. We do know that some ornithischians were fuzzy, but we know that these weren't theropod feathers, nor pterosaur pycnofibres, but a different type of filamentous integument, that so far I haven't seen to be named other than 'bristles'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulquiorra
Member Avatar


MrGorsh
Mar 18 2014, 02:02 AM
Ulquiorra
Mar 17 2014, 06:33 PM
After watching Clash of the Dinosaurs, it mentioned that all dinosaurs have a wish bone, hollow bones and air sacks in their lungs all traits that modern birds have today, yet if this is true with non-avian dinosaurs, like hadrosaurs and sauropods, could it be possible that they also had feathers of some kind?

Its left me with images in my head of a brachisaurus looking like a giant four legged ostrich.
Wishbone isn't exclusively avian, presence of wishbone (even on its early stages of development) doesn't indicate presence of feathers. We do know that some ornithischians were fuzzy, but we know that these weren't theropod feathers, nor pterosaur pycnofibres, but a different type of filamentous integument, that so far I haven't seen to be named other than 'bristles'.
Ah, so clash of the dinosaurs series lied about the wich bone, they claimed birds are the only group of vertebrates that have them today and that dinosaurs have wish bones and share other traits with birds not found in other vertebrate groups., but said nothing about weather larger dinosaurs like sauropods had feathers, despite having other avian features.

Then again clash of the dinosaurs also mentioned about parasaurolophus emitting ultrasonic sounds waves from its crest, which has been debunked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ignacio
Member Avatar
Ex Corrupt Staff

Well there are skin impressions of sauropods and hadrosaurs... and they were scally... at least in part.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


In Sauropods and Hadrosaurs, if they possessed any filamentous structures, then these structures would be strictly for visual display, as extensive scale fossils and impressions have been found.

Plus, CotD is something I'd avoid when searching for legitimate data. It's more of a parody of a documentary, aiming to mock, shock and amuse the audience instead of educating it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I don't know how shows like CotD that would rather lie to their viewers than educate them can even call themselves "documentaries". They clearly just took what they thought was the quickest route to making some bucks, not giving a damn about real science at all. We still don't have enough depictions of dinosaurs as ordinary animals, IMO. The "Walking with..." series offered us a glimmer of hope, but just as quickly we were returned to the old cliche of dinosaurs as bloodthirsty, war-like monsters.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Mar 18 2014, 01:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Meerkatmatt2
Member Avatar


The last day of the dinosaurs, it's sequel/special is MUCH better then COTD, one I would actually call a documentary, 1 and a half hours of the CGI, no repeats of the same footage from earlier very little erroneous speculation (Though the models are still just as fugly) and had shown a surprisingly realistic, yet horrifying version of the KT extinction (Almosaur scene comes to mind) while some shots are reused from the tv show, there is an entirely new russian/mongolian story arc. also they don't fight all the time, though there is a bit of normal behavior, and running away from various natural hazards added instead, and we see what happens in hadrosaur vs raptor 1 on 1 = squashed raptor!
it appears that discovery channel learn't some lessons from clash of the dinosaurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


Meerkatmatt2
Mar 19 2014, 02:43 AM
and we see what happens in hadrosaur vs raptor 1 on 1 = squashed raptor!
We also see small deinonychosaurs casually attacking multiton hadrosaurs like it was nothing and bringing them down. Just as hilarious as if I saw a domestic cat killing a cow. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


And then there was the fnal all-brawl fight where everyone is killed.
If that's not pathetic, I don't know what is anymore.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


Furka
Mar 19 2014, 04:17 AM
And then there was the fnal all-brawl fight where everyone is killed.
If that's not pathetic, I don't know what is anymore.
Posted Image

Sorry, I had to.


It never ceases to amaze me how people turn paleo documentaries into freak shows. But I guess it's a material for other topic in the section. xD
Edited by Similis, Mar 19 2014, 05:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Meerkatmatt2
Member Avatar


Better then the COTD anyway. not perfect but a vast improvement. also, having a three way kill is kind of hard to do, though the anky should of had a bit more of a fight, sure it's staving, but if it's for you life, you would want give it your best shot and trying not to get eaten.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I personally did enjoy Last Day of the Dinosaurs, and I agree that it was much better than CotD.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan The Man
Member Avatar
Honorary Party Member

I would like to point out that taking away the "t" from CotD turns it into CoD.

Which is better than CotD.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Not much.
But that's going offtopic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Here's one that's always bugged me. How did Protoceratops receive a name that means "first horned face" when it was far from the earliest ceratopsian and, in point of fact, one of the last?
Edited by CyborgIguana, Mar 21 2014, 06:00 PM.
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