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 (193,324 Views) | |
| 54godamora | Jan 15 2016, 04:32 PM Post #2551 |
![]() ![]()
|
what extinct animals, not counting tyrannosaurs, had a good sense of smell? |
![]() |
|
| Paleodude | Jan 15 2016, 07:06 PM Post #2552 |
|
ex-Krampus
![]()
|
A good majority of large theropod dinosaurs had an excellent sense of smell like Allosaurus, also if your looking for mammals we have Archaeotherium (Palmer, D., ed. (1999). The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions. p. 267. ISBN 1-84028-152-9.). As for aquatic animals pliosaurs (Carpenter, K. (1997). "Comparative cranial anatomy of two North American Cretaceous plesiosaurs." Pp. 191-216 in Callaway, J.M. and Nicholls, E.L. (eds.), Ancient Marine Reptiles. Academic Press.) and most non-filter feeding sharks. |
![]() |
|
| 54godamora | Jan 15 2016, 07:34 PM Post #2553 |
![]() ![]()
|
i was mainly looking for mammals and crocs. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jan 15 2016, 08:05 PM Post #2554 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Should've specified. Terrestrial mammals generally have a good sense of smell anyway. If they behaved like modern ones, scent would have been highly important not only for finding food, but served a large role in communication too. Crocs would have differed little from their modern counterparts as well. Though, given their relationship to New World vultures, teratorns would have likely shared their incredible sense of smell (Old World vultures, on the other hand, cannot smell at all). Large, predatory theropods also ad an acute sense of smell. Most predators do anyway. |
![]() |
|
| Mathius Tyra | Jan 16 2016, 02:39 AM Post #2555 |
![]()
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life
![]()
|
Not all new world vultures have good sense of smell though. The king vulture, black vulture and both species of condors can't smell well, so they find carcass with eye sight mainly or following the odor-homing vultures like the turkey and the yellow headed. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jan 16 2016, 06:32 AM Post #2556 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Oh okay, a good sense of smell is unique to Cathartes as a genus then. I thought it was all cathartids that had it. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 19 2016, 08:20 PM Post #2557 |
![]() ![]()
|
What position did sauropods keep their necks in, and how flexible were they? |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jan 19 2016, 09:24 PM Post #2558 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
This has been a point of major debate for many, MANY years. And it still is. My research tells me that it really it depends on the sauropod in question. No sauropod had a particularly flexible neck like long necked birds which can bend their necks in all sorts of ways. Sauropods were capable of turning their necks in wide arcs in all directions though. As for natural posture, some are more obvious - Brachiosaurus and such, thanks to their raised shoulders and sloped backs, end up naturally having a sloped neck when posed absolutely neutral. It's likely that their natural posture had their necks posed at near vertical as a result. That being said, they CAN'T go far past vertical. The rest of the macronarians ie. Camarasaurus and the titanosaurs, probably kept their necks naturally at 45 degrees. Seems to be what the latest tests say anyway. These had the most maneuverable of sauropod necks. Diplodocoids were comparatively restricted. They likely maintained that 45 degree angle in their necks, but their necks aren't as flexible, so they were more gently arced in their posture. They were actually most flexible DOWNWARDS, correlating with a grazing lifestyle for this lot. In Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus at least, newer hypotheses are that the strong muscles and oddly reinforced bones along the bottom of the necks, with a possibility of indication that small bosses were present suggest they even used these muscles to drive their necks downward when fighting. I think if you check out Scott Hartman's skeletals, the postures he gives his sauropods is fairly accurate to what we know. |
![]() |
|
| Paleodude | Jan 20 2016, 12:42 AM Post #2559 |
|
ex-Krampus
![]()
|
Does anyone know where I can find the paper that supports this piece of art; http://img08.deviantart.net/7e84/i/2011/129/5/8/__speedy_the_sauropod___by_paleopastori-d3fyr5t.jpg. More specifically bipedal sauropod hatchlings and whether it's a valid claim or not. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jan 20 2016, 12:58 AM Post #2560 |
![]() ![]()
|
It's a legitimate and plausible hypothesis IIRC, though I'm not sure where it originated. Turns out even adults of at least diplodocids might've been able to move bipedally for brief periods of time as well.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Jan 20 2016, 12:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Jan 20 2016, 01:06 AM Post #2561 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
If you're referring to Scott Hartman's Skeletal, I should point out that it was an April Fool's Joke. That said, I see no reason why it shouldn't be a valid hypothesis (I have heard nothing either way.) |
![]() |
|
| BossAggron | Jan 20 2016, 01:23 AM Post #2562 |
|
Formerly Dilophoraptor
![]()
|
It feels like I remember something about Sauropodlet tracks running on two legs. |
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Jan 20 2016, 01:31 AM Post #2563 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
There are such tracks, even for adult sauropods, but as Diplodocids are rather back-heavy animals it is thought that the shallower manus prints eroded away. |
![]() |
|
| Paleop | Jan 21 2016, 05:26 PM Post #2564 |
|
Paleopterix
![]()
|
considering many animals from the prince creek formation were smaller than their relatives is it possible that the cause may have been island dwarfism? could prince creek been on an island?
Edited by Paleop, Jan 21 2016, 05:27 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| TheNotFakeDK | Jan 21 2016, 06:21 PM Post #2565 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
While perhaps not an island in the literal sense, it has been suggested in at least one paper that the Prince Creek locality was geographically separated from the rest of Laramidia by the ancestral Brooks Range, effectively creating "an island within the larger landmass of Laramidia". This kind of faunal provincialism in Laramidia wouldn't be surprising, given that there also appears to be a clear distinction between northern and southern faunas during the Campanian. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups














