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 (193,348 Views) | |
| Paleop | Oct 18 2015, 12:08 AM Post #2191 |
|
Paleopterix
![]()
|
the new documentary on nat geo dino death match might be the reason |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Oct 18 2015, 05:33 AM Post #2192 |
![]() ![]()
|
Frankly documentaries that want to show T. rex fighting something are the only ones who keep saying Nano is a different animal. BossMan, Jake: there's also Tarbosaurus and Alioramus (and Bagaaratan or whatever its name is, assuming it's also a member of the family). Edited by Furka, Oct 18 2015, 05:33 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Oct 18 2015, 07:51 AM Post #2193 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
No. We never confirmed it. And our hopes of confirming OR disproving it have been shot down by the only paleontologist alive that wants it to be real. In other words, here's another thing to put onto the list of reasons why Larson is a massive ****. Last decade, he nearly cost us Sue. He tried to con a man of relinquishing Sue, and as a result, the government confiscated it from everyone until the lawsuit was settled. The lawsuit ended in favour of the landowner (the man Larson tried to con), and the ONLY reason why we got it back was because big name corporations across the entire USA actually teamed up with the Chicago Field Museum to give the land owner nearly 8.5 million bucks to put Sue back into scientific hands. He nearly cost us our biggest and best T. rex. This time, he actually did make us lose a T. rex. It is thanks to that same guy we will NEVER answer this question. Larson cooperated with auctioners to sell off the fossil to private hands. The Nat Geo docs about the "dino deathmatch" fossil was basically a one sided documentary by Larson to tell the world Nanotyrannus was real, and was an ad for upping its marketing potential. The "documentary" never focused on the other side of the debate. It never even took a glimpse at the other 50% of the duelling dinosaurs, the ceratopsian which may or may not have been our first complete Triceratops (or even our first EVER distinguishable Torosaurus post-cranial material). THAT half was COMPLETELY ignored entirely. Larson spent half his screen time in that "documentary" exclaiming Nanotyrannus is real, in exactly the same way (and I'm not even exaggerating here) like a kid is trying to convince people Santa's real. It was PATHETIC. So I started asking myself: "Why is he so desperate to get word out that Nano is real and then sell off the one thing we have that could support his case?" So here's my thinking. I think he found something. I think he found the answer, or something CRITICAL to getting answers. And I think the answer would have put a big red stamp saying [WRONG] on his forehead. His credibility would have been shot down forever. Here's a man that has a record if shady dealings with Tyrannosaurus fossils. A man that doesn't come across as really giving a damn about scientific credibility. So I think rather than give someone else a chance to look at the fossil and go "Nano wasn't a thing, oh well, tough luck Larson", he saw a way to keep EVERYONE away from it and thwart his hypothesis permanently. The actions taken in response to the deathmatch fossil were the actions of a desperate man. So now we have to find another stupidly good fossil like that to be able to bring Larson's final word on the matter back into controversy. And it's a shame that we lost a potentially important ceratopsian fossil too. And that diden' do nuffin. So moving on to coexisting tyrannosaurids in general... Uhh... Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus, yes. Tarbosaurus and I THINK one of the Alioramus species (remember, there's 2 Alioramus, one from much further inland that was likely on its own based off what we've got). I'll need to double check dates and locations for this though. Zhuchengtyrannus and Tarbosaurus also coexisted I think. I say I THINK because while not from the same fossil beds, as far as I'm aware anyway, they shared the same time and weren't TOO far away. There would have been a possible overlap between them. I say this with skepticism, so if anyone has any reason to suggest otherwise, I'm all ears. Word of Alamotyrannus being a thing as well would potentially allow for overlap between that and southern representatives of Tyrannosaurus. Again, same thing as Zhucheng and Tarbo. UPDATE: I HAVE RECIEVED WORD THAT CARR'S MONOGRAPH ON JANE, COMING OUT LATER THIS YEAR, COMPLTELY DESTROYED NANOTYRANNUS AT SVP THIS YEAR. SO STAY TUNED. Edited by Incinerox, Oct 18 2015, 08:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 18 2015, 10:22 AM Post #2194 |
![]() ![]()
|
IIRC Tarbosaurus did indeed coexist with Alioramus in the Nemegt formation. |
![]() |
|
| babehunter1324 | Oct 18 2015, 10:41 AM Post #2195 |
![]()
|
Also one of the main point s of Larson claims that Nanotyrannus was a juvenile T. rex was that apparently the arm bones were nearly as large as those of fully adult individuals... The problem is that this seems to be the case with virtually all other Tyrannosaurid juveniles for which bone material from the arms has been found suggesting that a decrease in their relative size was widespread during the onthogenical growth of Tyrannosaurids. Edited by babehunter1324, Oct 18 2015, 10:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Oct 18 2015, 10:54 AM Post #2196 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
I didn't even watch the documentary I asuned that they were different based on different skull shapes and CT scans showing different brain patterns. Also did Lythronyx and Teratophoneus live together in the Grand Staircase? |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 18 2015, 01:50 PM Post #2197 |
![]() ![]()
|
I don't think so. Lythronax's fossils are believed to be approximately 4 million years older than Teratophoneus's IIRC. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Oct 18 2015, 05:54 PM Post #2198 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
My sources tell me that this was one of the most crushing of Nanotyrannus's defeats in SVP. |
![]() |
|
| Stan The Man | Oct 18 2015, 06:06 PM Post #2199 |
![]()
Honorary Party Member
![]()
|
Such a shame for above-standard dinosaur models to be used in what seems to be such a political "documentary". What would be a good color scheme for Sarcosuchus when using modern crocodilians from similar environments as a basis? All I ever see is plain ol' khaki on the overhyped bugger. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Oct 18 2015, 10:27 PM Post #2200 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
Well my first step would be to recognize what it's environment was like. Was it arid or wet? Swamp or lakes? Once you learn of an extinct animals environment you can make a color scheme to match. Since sarco lived in wetlands that may have seen some droughts IIRC than go for a mixture of dark greens and khakis. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Oct 19 2015, 07:49 AM Post #2201 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Granted, most crocodiles share similar colour palettes. Salties tend to be the most variable though. I can totally see why khaki is commonly used. Most people assume it'd have had colours similar to a modern false gharial, which are orange-ish with dark stripes along their back. Throw in the idea that it lived in a more srubby, semi-arid environment, and you've got yourself a perfect recipe for a khaki stripy Sarcosuchus. A lot of reconstructions of the above type are really common, and many of those are VERY well executed and very down to earth. I do see your point though. It's time to do something else with SuperCroc. So if you wish to deviate from that, I can tell you that the area was not arid. Given the size of Sarcosuchus and the fish there, it was likely a very large, very deep river system in what would be a very humid and very green world. I suppose it'd be more like the Everglades or the Amazon - large, slow moving rivers surrounded by comparatively dense vegetation (there don't seem to be any large titanosaurs or their major predators in the area, suggesting a lack of solid ground or space for them to move). Also, given the shape of its jaws and tooth arrangement, it's not likely that Sarcosuchus was going after particularly large dinosaurs. A fully grown Lurdusaurus or Nigersaurus were likely not on the menu. It probably stuck with the huge fish that were there, and smaller dinosaurs. More attention should focus on what'd hide it from other underwater animals, as opposed to creatures looking at it from above. With that in mind, perhaps you'd be better off with something darker, murkier and more cryptic. Many smaller crocodilians, particularly caiman species have some interesting colours and markings. And unlike your bog standard crocodiles, caiman colours are heavily underused in extinct crocodilian reconstructions, in favour of the more cliche Saltie or Nile crocodile palettes for the big scary ones like Deinosuchus, with False gharials, Slender-snouted crocs and Freshies for Sarcosuchus specifically. Even give it spots or something instead of the cliche stripes. Pale spots on top of an otherwise very dark black-green and khaki brown mottling. Increase the counter shading factor, break up its outline more. Mix up the pattern type. Also bear in mind that it's a large croc - better at retaining heat than smaller individuals, so you may decide mostly dark is a bad idea (I'll have to double check my sources on this, but I THINK crocodilians can regulate blood flow to their scutes, so an individual croc could look rather dark when trying to warm up in the morning, and then in the heat of the afternoon sun, it'll look paler as it tries to keep cool). We do have specific scute arrangement for Sarcosuchus on its back (it had two rows of very flat, broad rectangular scutes which gave it a "flat backed" look), so that might be something to work with in balancing light and dark colours (a sort of solar panel type of look could result from this). I DON'T KNOW. That's all down to you and the direction you want to take Sarcosuchus. When it comes down to it, rather than create something that simply resembles a modern crocodilian species, mix it up a bit. There is NOTHING like Sarcosuchus alive today, or even in the fossil record. Give it something new and exciting. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Oct 19 2015, 02:16 PM Post #2202 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
So I'm working on this idea for a book about the Morrison Formation. I have a list of animals to appear in the story but what should include/take away. It's set 152 mya in Denver Allosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Torvosaurus, Saurophaganax, Ornitholestes, Coeluerus Stegosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Camptosaurus, Dryosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus And the following will be feathered (some not fully) Allosaurus, Ornitholestes, Coeluerus, Dryosaurus |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Oct 19 2015, 02:19 PM Post #2203 |
![]() ![]()
|
I think you could use some non-dinosaurian fauna. Morrison had some nice critters. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Oct 19 2015, 02:58 PM Post #2204 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
I will I just wanted to know a good dinosaur line up first |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Oct 19 2015, 03:03 PM Post #2205 |
![]() ![]()
|
I think that's good enough (perhaps too many carnivores ?), you could just throw in Gargoyleosaurus and Fruitadens to have something less known in the mix (assuming they fit the timeline). |
![]() |
|
| 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












