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 (193,342 Views)
Paleop
Member Avatar
Paleopterix

Paleodude
Nov 2 2015, 07:53 PM
Incinerox
Nov 2 2015, 07:43 PM
Walking With Things simply did everything properly:

> The dinosaurs themselves were restored as if they were real animals, not just characters in a dinosaur setting (WWD Movie, Dinosaur Planet, Dinosaur Revolution).

> The format of each episode followed in the footsteps of a typical wildlife documentary, rather than constantly repeated footage of crude CGI dinosaurs, with crude CGI anatomical detailing, with quote mined paleontologists talking in between (Clash of the Dinosaurs, Jurassic Fight Club, Planet Dinosaur).

> Not only did they film on location, but the actual filming was done in such a way that they could have been used for modern animal documentaries, so you get more believable angles of the animals on screen rather than just going with whatever looks good (Dinosaur Revolution was filmed on location mostly, but it was very... storyboarded I supposed is the word I'd use).

> Adding onto that, they made sure not only to keep the scenes believable, but to let the footage do the talking, backed up with very understated yet reasonable quality narrating (instead of some overly dramatic, hyper-American WWE-tier narrator talking nonsense over EVERYTHING. Show the scenery to viewers, don't get someone to chew it) (JFC, Clash of the Dinosaurs were horrid when it came down to this).

> Adding on to THAT, Walking With didn't fall victim to over-sensationalism.
What I wouldn't give for another documentary like WWD, I would even settle for an indie film if it was the only way. Anyone know if there is anything like it in production or that already exist?
i'm surprised that this community hasn't joined together to make a psuedo wwd yet...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fluffs
No Avatar
Pull my finger!

Incinerox
Nov 3 2015, 03:45 PM
Dimetrodon question:
Well that was partly the reason why they started thinking the sail didn't reach all the way to the ends of the bones - they were frequently damaged, broken and split near the tops (though I wonder how a Dimetrodon would actually break the tips of their sails alone in a fight - perhaps they just get battered about as it moved through dense scrubby areas?) to a point where the presence of skin would be detrimental to any healing that took place there.

Pterosaur question:
I'll have to double check what they got out of Sordes and other fossils of that quality if they even exist, but off the top of my head, I recall that they covered the faces, core body and the limbs themselves down to the elbows and knees. The membranes themselves were left bare, and I think the tails of rhamphorhynchoids were too. That said, I distinctly recall in Conway and Witton's book that anurognathids had small tufts of fibers on their wingtips.

Ceratopsian question:
Where was this argued, and in what context? This fascinates me. Details, bro. Details!
http://comments.deviantart.com/1/563738384/3957513813

Everything should be right there :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Incinerox
Nov 3 2015, 03:45 PM
Dimetrodon question:
Well that was partly the reason why they started thinking the sail didn't reach all the way to the ends of the bones - they were frequently damaged, broken and split near the tops (though I wonder how a Dimetrodon would actually break the tips of their sails alone in a fight - perhaps they just get battered about as it moved through dense scrubby areas?) to a point where the presence of skin would be detrimental to any healing that took place there.
My bet is that the sail would get damaged when the animal was younger, and more exposed to any sort of danger.
Then the animal would grow up with the scars of the incidents.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Fluffs
Nov 3 2015, 04:49 PM
Ah, right.

See, Headden's made reference to specifically mammalian-tier muscly cheeks in EoFauna's comment. Which is entirely true - there is no evidence to suggest that the cheeks themselves were muscled like in mammals.

HOWEVER, the fact that ceratopsian teeth are inset away from the outer margins of the jawline does suggest the presence of soft tissue covering the jaws (a similar condition seen in every other derived ornithischian - ankylosaurs had even thrown in a plate of armour there too).

My thinking is EoFauna's simply misinterpreted what Headden meant.

Though I'd like to point out that Headden is notoriously bad for adding far less soft tissues to his dinosaurs than he really should be doing. All of his dinosaurs look seriously emaciated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Some questions about extinct crocodiles.
What was the the largest known by good fossils? And by fragmentary remains?
What kind of prey did Sarcosuchus feed on most often?
Was Mourasuchus a plankton eater?
In Animal Armaggedon they depicted Phobosuchus(Deinosuchus) living til the KPG extinction. Was this true? And if not why include it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

1) All of our giant crocs are actually known from okay-ish fragments (we're dealing mostly in skull remains here, which is normally enough to predict size based off related taxa). Sarcosuchus is our most complete, and our longest of the lot, known from multiple specimens from North Africa and a second species from Brazil. Deinosuchus and Purussaurus were likely heavier though, given Sarcosuchus was fairly long and lightly built. In terms of length:
> Sarcosuchus, 11-12m
> Deinosuchus, 10-12m
> Purussaurus, 10-12m
> Mourasuchus, 10-12m
> Crocodylus bugtiensis, 10-11m
> Rhamphosuchus, 8-11m
> Stomatosuchus, 10m
> Gryposuchus, 10m
> Euthecodon, 10m

2) Sarcosuchus was a piscivore. There were MASSIVE fish in the area (elephant sized Mawsonia, for example), and tests on its skull suggest it couldn't actually deathroll, so it was likely not feeding on large dinosaurs like media hype suggests.

3) That's what they say. I sooorta disagree, in that it didn't have the teeth of an explicit filter feeder (this is off the top of my head, so I welcome pics that say otherwise). I want to say it probably went after shoals of small fish rather than plankton. I also wonder how effective its jaws were like that of a platypus's bill, rooting around in muddy substrate for freshwater rays or something... [SPECULATION INTENSIFIES]

4) No. They lived from 80 to 73Ma, our youngest remains 7 million years OLDER than the K/Pg extinction. Why they included it at the end of the Cretaceous? I don't know. Coz they're stupid and didn't do their research? It shocks me how many "documentaries" don't do their god damn research.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

What about Aegisuchus? Some estimates put it anywhere from 50-72 feet?
Just curious as to your thoughts on that
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Wikipedia
 

t 40 cubic centimetres, the braincase of Aegisuchus is much larger in volume than that of any other crocodyliform. Based on the ratio of braincase to skull length in other crocodilians, the total skull length of Aegisuchus is estimated to have been 2.08 to 2.86 metres (6.8 to 9.4 ft) in length. A similar ratio between braincase and body length puts Aegisuchus at 15 to 21 metres (49 to 69 ft) long when based on the proportions of long-snouted gharials, or 16 to 22 metres (52 to 72 ft) long when based on the proportions of short-snouted crocodiles. Aegisuchus was almost certainly not this long, for it would be much longer than the largest of crocodilians, including Deinosuchus, Gryposuchus, Purussaurus, and Sarcosuchus. As a "duck-faced" crocodyliform, Aegisuchus may have had a longer snout relative to body length than living crocodylians.[1]


I would say they need to tone it down a bit, and settle at 10-12m like all the other giants until further data suggests otherwise. It still had a pretty large braincase, but we barely have anything for it or its relatives.
Edited by Incinerox, Nov 4 2015, 04:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Incinerox
Nov 4 2015, 03:50 PM
4) No. They lived from 80 to 73Ma, our youngest remains 7 million years OLDER than the K/Pg extinction. Why they included it at the end of the Cretaceous? I don't know. Coz they're stupid and didn't do their research? It shocks me how many "documentaries" don't do their god damn research.
Because giant mesozoic crocodilian.
And that whole series had the nasty habit of putting together animals from different ecosystems. That Cretaceous part also featured Velociraptor, Byronosaurus and Protoceratops living at the same time of Hell Creek Fauna ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Furka
Nov 4 2015, 05:45 PM
And that whole series had the nasty habit of putting together animals from different ecosystems. That Cretaceous part also featured Velociraptor, Byronosaurus and Protoceratops living at the same time of Hell Creek Fauna ...
TBH I was surprised that their last episode taking place in the present day didn't include gomphotheres and phorusrhacids! :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathius Tyra
Member Avatar
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life

And they have the ugliest T. rex ever...

And they said T. rex would be the last dinosaurs to live because it could eat any other dinosaurs, thus making them eating all of the other species to extinction before facing their own...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heliosphoros
Member Avatar


Incinerox
Nov 3 2015, 03:45 PM
Pterosaur question:
I'll have to double check what they got out of Sordes and other fossils of that quality if they even exist, but off the top of my head, I recall that they covered the faces, core body and the limbs themselves down to the elbows and knees. The membranes themselves were left bare, and I think the tails of rhamphorhynchoids were too. That said, I distinctly recall in Conway and Witton's book that anurognathids had small tufts of fibers on their wingtips.

The gist appears indeed that their wings were generally barren aside from the zones around the limbs, but anurognathids have pycnofibers trailing at least the dystal part of the wing membrane.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jules
Member Avatar
Mihi est imperare orbi universo

Do we know anything about the role of said pycnofibers? Could their purpose be similar to those small barbs and hooks on owl feathers, to enable silent flight?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Hmm interesting concept. In a species like Sordes that would make sense, its large eyes could've been an adaptation for nocturnal hunting.
As for larger Pterosaurs I don't think so. I think the Pycnofibers would've been like the short hair of some mammals, keeping the skin (Which may have been sensitive to sunlight) warm/cooled and protected from the Sun. Especially the ones that lived out by the Sea/Ocean
Edited by BossMan, Jake, Nov 5 2015, 11:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jules
Member Avatar
Mihi est imperare orbi universo

I meant the ones on Anurognathids, obviously Azhdarchids wouldn't benefit much from silent flight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply