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: |
| Extinct Animal Questions | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 26 2013, 10:24 PM (193,361 Views) | |
| Trichechus | Aug 31 2015, 05:17 PM Post #1996 |
![]()
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
![]()
|
Hey- what's the current consensus on the most accurate way to reconstruct Spinosaurus front limbs? I know there's been some controversy when it comes to that, and there is no real consensus on it, but what would be the best way to do so? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Aug 31 2015, 08:19 PM Post #1997 |
![]() ![]()
|
Personally I would just avoid putting it in a walking position all together. Technically it's more likely for it to be bipedal based on the single digit we have and the lack of any quadrupedal Theropods. That does not rule out quadrupedalism at all, mind you. For all we know it could be like a grebe and just awkwardly flop around on land. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Aug 31 2015, 08:47 PM Post #1998 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
All we know for certain about spinosaurus on land is that it would not have had very good balance on its hind legs. It might have walked on its fingertips or its knuckles, it might have leaned on its forearms, it could have leaned back on its own tail, or it could have tucked its arms aside and flopped about like a loon (the closest analog to spinosaurus body shape and presumed range of motion). Who knows, it could have used a combination of these methods. As Flish said the single digit we have shows no signs of a special adaptation for walking, which means walking on its knuckles or fingertips would have been very uncomfortable for it, but a loon is uncomfortable simply leaving the water so it's not definitive. Personally, I depict spinosaurus leaning on its forearms as this seems to be the most comfortable method of locomotion, but I could picture it being capable of moving on its fingertips or knuckles in a hurry if it needed to. |
![]() |
|
| Anas Platyrhynchos | Aug 31 2015, 08:56 PM Post #1999 |
![]()
The Quacky Canine
![]()
|
ARTWORK HAS BEEN INSPIRED!! Is it possible Rhamphorhynchid Pterosaurs had a nasty attitude |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Aug 31 2015, 09:32 PM Post #2000 |
![]() ![]()
|
Of course it's possible for some, but that's not the kind of thing you can prove based on fossil evidence. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 1 2015, 07:06 PM Post #2001 |
![]()
★
![]()
|
Agreed with Cyborg. It's pretty much impossible to prove that, actually. For example, if we uncovered a huge group of Rhamphorynchus we could reason that they were social/the site was a nesting area, which in turn leads you to believe they would all get along to a degree. But, (Using modern day breeding colonies of the two groups as examples) it seems that large groups of reptiles and birds are particularly grouchy with one another in close quarters. I'd say it's really up to creative license if you want to depict them as being mean or not. |
![]() |
|
| Paleop | Sep 2 2015, 10:37 AM Post #2002 |
|
Paleopterix
![]()
|
when exactly was megalosaurus discovered? (before it was named) |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Sep 2 2015, 12:23 PM Post #2003 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
1676. Though that was the infamous distal femur that was once mistaken for a giant's plums. The next time Megalosaurus parts would be aquired was the equally famous partial dentary, which was found in 1797. Edited by Incinerox, Sep 2 2015, 12:26 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Even | Sep 2 2015, 12:59 PM Post #2004 |
![]()
|
@Alamosaurus controversy: Well, to be fair there were some allegations that the Lancian-Alamo fauna was connected with the fauna on South America somehow (Alamosaurus w/ SA titanosaurs, Kritosaurus with Secernosaurus and Willinakaqe, Avisaurus with Soroavisaurus, etc.)
Edited by Even, Sep 2 2015, 12:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Sep 2 2015, 02:16 PM Post #2005 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
To be fair, Kritosaurus was from the underlying Kirtland Formation. And hadrosaurs originated in Laurasian continents. Which really thickens the plot really. See, some paleogeographic maps keep North and South America apart (which abides by what we know to be "common knowledge" in paleontology). Others have a very small string of islands connecting the two continents together. Though I'm not sure that's enough to facilitate a faunal interchange between VERY large American taxa. Some take it further and have TWO (one being what would one day become the Caribbean, the other a tail-off of the Rockies that would one day connect with the yet-to-form Andes). So here's my thought, and bear in mind it's completely unfounded and is speculative unless there's actually a paper to back me up on it: What if that string of islands was not just a string of islands, but a genuine land bridge? Could that have been a possibility? And if so, what if the formation of two land bridges actually cut off a portion of ocean between the two Americas, creating a land brige actually suitable for the cross-over of two very large herbivore clades? It opens up a series of other questions too - why did taxa within saltasauridae and kritosaurini cross over, and not their predators? Why are there no North American Abelisaurs in Ojo Alamo or Kirtland? Where are our South American tyrannossaurines? |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Sep 2 2015, 02:28 PM Post #2006 |
![]() ![]()
|
I heard about someone proposing Labocania (?) as an abelisaur once, but I don't know how much credibility it had ... |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 2 2015, 02:51 PM Post #2007 |
![]() ![]()
|
I think a full on land bridge is unlikely considering the tropical climate of North America at the time. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Sep 2 2015, 04:19 PM Post #2008 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
When talking about dinosaur coloration how come we only have proof in certain feathered dinosaurs? For instance how come we know the color of for example microraptor but not Beipiosaurus, Yutyrannus, and Psitaccosaurus for example? |
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Sep 2 2015, 04:45 PM Post #2009 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
Firstly because it depends on the quality of preservation. The actual melanosomes need to be preserved. Secondly because deciphering the melanosomes is a long, complicated process, and a very new one at that. It could take years for scientists to get around to decoding Yutyrannus' colour, assuming its colour was preserved. Even then, melanosome decoding is apparently not as accurate as once thought. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Sep 2 2015, 04:49 PM Post #2010 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
Ok I figured it had to be due to certain conditions. I just had to be sure |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 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


















