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 (193,354 Views) | |
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Sep 29 2015, 12:07 PM Post #2101 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
Azdarchids have been suggested as being omnivorous, I think. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Sep 29 2015, 12:45 PM Post #2102 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
So just curious are there any formations where we have found nearly all the animals within the ecosystem? The only I can think that are close are the Morrison, and Hell Creek formations. As well as the Isle of Wight Or is this one of those question which can't be answered Edited by BossMan, Jake, Sep 29 2015, 12:45 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Furka | Sep 29 2015, 01:06 PM Post #2103 |
![]() ![]()
|
There's the La Brea Tar pits too. Although I think it's a question which can't be really answered. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Sep 29 2015, 01:17 PM Post #2104 |
![]() ![]()
|
We also have a fair chunk of the ecosystems of Hateg Island and most Campanian-early Maastrichtian Laramidian formations IIRC.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Sep 29 2015, 01:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Luca9108 | Sep 29 2015, 01:47 PM Post #2105 |
![]()
Master of Dinosaurs
![]()
|
I think it is inpossible to find a complete extinct ecosystem, because there aren't just big animals, there are small animals like insects too and they don't get fossilized very well ( besides some exceptions ) |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Sep 29 2015, 02:28 PM Post #2106 |
![]() ![]()
|
Yes, but in the cases of at least Hell Creek and Morrison we HAVE plenty of the smaller animals and plant life preserved alongside the larger animals. It's not a complete picture, but it gives us a basic idea of what was going on.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Sep 29 2015, 02:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Sep 29 2015, 03:50 PM Post #2107 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Firstly, just getting it out of the way, Pachyrhinosaurus only lived for 3.5 million years. Not a big deal. It's the same as Parasaurolophus when you exclude Charonosaurus from the equation. Alectrosaurus is known from literally a foot from strata of unspecified age, cited only as Campanian (which is itself a huge timespan for a foot and maybe other scattered remains of a shoulder and skull fragment). However, modern Varanus has been around for more than 10 million years and spread across several continents. Alligator is even older still, dating 37 million years and that's on both sides of a very big ocean. Balaenoptera, again, 13 million years plus (granted, marine genus, but you get the idea). It's not unheard of. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Sep 29 2015, 11:56 PM Post #2108 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
We're there any other tyrannosaurs found in Alaska? Nanuquasaurus appears to be the only definitive species though I keep reading about fragmentary gorgosaurus and albertosaurus.
Edited by BossMan, Jake, Sep 29 2015, 11:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Sep 30 2015, 05:20 AM Post #2109 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
The fragments of albertosaurines from Alaska are still currently undescribed and dubious. We have no idea what they are and how they relate to Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus (honestly, we still aren't sure how those two are related, only that they are VERY close to each other). They weren't from Nanuqsaurus's time either. Nanuqsaurus was a tad younger than Alaska's albertosaurine fossils. It's a bit of a random tangent, but does anyone know why my profile on the left is being weird with Imageshack? Is it me or the forum? Does anyone else even see it? Edited by Incinerox, Sep 30 2015, 05:21 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Furka | Sep 30 2015, 06:01 AM Post #2110 |
![]() ![]()
|
Most likely an issue with Imageshack and the warn icons, although I can't tell much more than that. Back on topic, is it possible that Unenlaginae weren't strictly fishers, but something close to Azdarchids in terms of behaviour ? |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Sep 30 2015, 06:43 AM Post #2111 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Well, I have trouble seeing Mahakala as a fisher, to be honest. I wouldn't exclude some Unenlagiines having different diets - there are a lot of wading bird species, and there's no reason some of them shouldn't be closer in habits to storks than to herons. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Sep 30 2015, 10:05 AM Post #2112 |
![]() ![]()
|
Herons themselves aren't fully aquatic either, around here I've seen them hunt terrestrial preys very often, especially in winter when most aquatic life is out of their reach. On an unrelated note, do we have an idea of what habitat Egg Mountain was back when Maiasaura nested in it ? was it like an island, a mountainous region or what ? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 30 2015, 05:57 PM Post #2113 |
![]() ![]()
|
Monitors and Alligators are not at all a fair comparison when you take into account they are not filling the same niches as any of these animals (Except Megalania and Komodo dragons but these are the exception, not the rule) and even then, afaik they want to split Varanus up. As for Pachyrhinosaurus, my apologies on that, I cannot into math. As for Alectrosaurus, Wikipedia says otherwise. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Sep 30 2015, 11:49 PM Post #2114 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
So I just read an article stating that coelophysis did not live in the era of say 220 mya as depicted my many forms of media including documentaries. The article says it lived at the tail end of the Triassic even into the early Jurassic. If this is the case what coelophysoid dinosaur would have lived in Ghost Ranch between say 220-210 mya like how it was thought to have before?
Edited by BossMan, Jake, Sep 30 2015, 11:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 1 2015, 08:51 AM Post #2115 |
![]() ![]()
|
They were still Coelophysis IIRC. If anything Ghost Ranch was just incorrectly dated until recently. |
![]() |
|
| 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












You are right. However I really don't think you can call Charonosaurus a species of Parasaurolophus. Even if they are similar, they are still separated by seven million years. I find it hard to believe that they can stay similar enough for that long to be in the same genus, especially on a different continent.



