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 (193,314 Views) | |
| CyborgIguana | Feb 11 2016, 04:28 PM Post #2701 |
![]() ![]()
|
BTW Jake for future reference only the genus is capitalized in a scientific name. |
![]() |
|
| Rudyn | Feb 11 2016, 07:12 PM Post #2702 |
![]() ![]()
|
Wikipedia said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maevarano_Formation That we know some Stegosaurus remains from Maevarano Formation. Are there more information about this remains so it was really a stegosauridae which survived until the late cretaceous in Madagascar or it was just some misunderstood reamins? |
![]() |
|
| Denomon3144 | Feb 11 2016, 07:46 PM Post #2703 |
![]()
Pick a god and pray!
![]()
|
What would have been the niche that Xiphactinus filled in? Would it be similar to a sharks'?
Edited by Denomon3144, Feb 11 2016, 10:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| BossAggron | Feb 11 2016, 09:37 PM Post #2704 |
|
Formerly Dilophoraptor
![]()
|
I Think they were either reclassified under Majungasaurus or are now thought be be Ankylosaurian in origin. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Feb 12 2016, 12:07 AM Post #2705 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
This "stegosaur" was most like a wastebasket taxon It would be more resonable if the animal was either an ankylosaur or a nodosaur but IIRC there haven't been any fossils of either from Africa. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Feb 12 2016, 02:21 AM Post #2706 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
More like swordfish actually. Or pelagic tigerfish. Sharks had the role of sharks. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Feb 12 2016, 03:19 AM Post #2707 |
![]() ![]()
|
I've always imagined Xiph as some kind of giant bluefish. However the feeding style seems different, Xyph apparently swallowed even large fish whole, bluefish chop everything in half even if it's something small that they could fit in with one bite. Makes me wonder if Xiphactinus teeth were just scary and adapted only to hold onto the prey and prevent it from escaping rather than slice through it. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Feb 12 2016, 04:04 AM Post #2708 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
You'd be spot on there actually:![]() They weren't serrated so they were terrible for slicing. Instead, cone shaped and slightly recurved. VERY good for grabbing and holding on to things. |
![]() |
|
| Anas Platyrhynchos | Feb 13 2016, 09:24 PM Post #2709 |
![]()
The Quacky Canine
![]()
|
Would two Saurophaganax be able to win a fight against three grown Allosaurs and a Torvosaurus? Just wondering (If you looked at the Morrison Formation Roleplay around the last few pages you would understand why I ask) |
![]() |
|
|
|
Feb 13 2016, 09:32 PM Post #2710 |
![]()
|
Tbh I doubt the Torvosaurus would join the side of the three Allosaurus to fight two Saurophaganax since it wouldn't want to be injured in a fight that doesn't involve it. A Lynx doesn't join a pair of wolves just to fight a tiger. Also I'm pretty sure the Saurophaganax have size on its size and there's only one more Allosaur than Saurophaganax. |
![]() |
|
| Anas Platyrhynchos | Feb 13 2016, 10:05 PM Post #2711 |
![]()
The Quacky Canine
![]()
|
Well.... That isn't exactly the most descriptive answer but I guess that means yes Also a bit off topic. But I really hope a new Morrison Formation RP is made. Simply because I feel I ruined the last one with my stupidity and am now too embarrassed to post in it again since I left it at a very weird spot |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Feb 14 2016, 06:12 AM Post #2712 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Not only that, but given that the Morrison Formation covers a substantial timespan (10 million years), and much of it is poorly documented, its actually quite likely that Saurophaganax didn't even coexist with bog-standard Allosaurus, and was possibly instead a descendant species, like Epanterias/Allosaurus amplexus is thought to be. But if we're actually taking the fight seriously, it completely depends on what sizes you're working with. Estimates for Allosaurus's maximum range from 9 to 12m depending on who you ask (averaging 7-8m anyway), and Saurophaganax was 10 to 13m. So it's either a stupidly vast size difference in Saurophaganax 's favour, or size differences were near non-existent, and you have a 3 vs 2 theropod fight in Allosaurus's favour. Not to mention the Torvosaurus that may or may not want in on the action. T. tanneri was a solid 10m though, so its impact on the fight could be minimal to CATASTROPHIC depending on the sizes of the allosaurids involved. |
![]() |
|
| babehunter1324 | Feb 14 2016, 07:48 AM Post #2713 |
![]()
|
I have heared that Torvosaurus tanneri has so far only been discovered in strata from the middle range of the Morrison formation and hasn't so far been found in earlier or latter deposits. In my oppinion I think there wasn't that much competition between the main predators of the Morrison-Lourinhã Formation. Allosaurus seem to had been the most abundant predator in both ecosystems due to it's more generalist nature, with it's relatively stiff spinal cord and long legs being suited for moving long distances and chasing after prey for long periods of time in a preferrably opened habitat. Both Torvosaurus and Ceratosaurus were a stark contrast from Allosaurus, they both had relativelly short legs (which became proportionally shorter due to ontheogeny), and had both a very narrow frontal profile and a flexible spine. The seem to had been better suited for quick burst of speeds that long chases and their highly flexible bodies would make them very good runners in areas with heavy folliage at least for their size. Ceratosaurus seems to be the type that would be a generalist, eating everything from Goniopholids, to small theropods, to small-medium Ornithoschian and juevenile Sauropods which it probably dispatched in a extremelly speedy fashion thanks to it's powerfull, relativelly large and very long toothed jaws. Adult Torvosaurus on the other hand were probably more specialized in larger prey and likely had a somewhat similar hunting strategy. With all that said let's not forget that in a lot of species of carnivorous birds there is very little interspecific competition when feeding on the carcasses of large animals, so I wouldn't be surprissed if the carcass of a large Sauropod would congragate any species of carnivore in the vecinity and that they would actually show a remarkably low interspecific level of agression towards adult members of each species. Edited by babehunter1324, Feb 14 2016, 07:50 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Feb 14 2016, 10:51 AM Post #2714 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
While I will not speak for Torvosaurus, since my research has not taken me down that route, have reason to think everything we know about Ceratosaurus is likely bogus. Actually, no, I lie. I will talk a bit on Torvosaurus. The idea that it was living in the wetter, more heavily foliage-ed areas of Morrison is actually pretty solid. Not only because of its long, low build (flexibility isn't really a thing in theropods anyway), but it's best known from the Dry Mesa quarry, which appears to have been an extensive wetland area near an alkali-lake. We also apparently have evidence of it munching on aquatic animals like turtles and such. That, and in contrast to Morrison's "fern savannah" environment, the Lourinha Formation of Portugal was more coastal, estuarine and had a wetter climate, where, lo and behold, Torvosaurus was not only larger, but it was larger than the other theropods there. Meaning it was better supported ecologically. I cannot say for sure how common it was in Lourinha, on the basis that the whole formation isn't as well documented as Morrison. However, the only thing that ever tied Ceratosaurus to water was this notion that its deep, flexible tail meant it was a powerful swimmer. This is old logic. We've known for ages that theropods did not swim using their tails, and we've known for ages that Ceratosaurus's tail was "relatively" flexible because stiffened tails were a key trait that separated the tetanurans from more basal theropods - it is not a swimming adaptation. And it bothers me when people use this as an argument for swimming. Not only that, Ceratosaurus wasn't exactly long bodied. Hell, if anything, of the three large theropods there, adult Ceratosaurus (as represented by C. dentisulcatus) are the stockiest of the lot. I mean, take a look at this: Linky link. With a huge head, tiny arms, thick body, shortish legs and deeply muscled tail, it almost looks like it was trying to be a tyrannosaurine before it was cool. On top of that, Ceratosaurus tooth marks are extremely common on large, terrestrial dinosaurs, including at least one occasion where an Allosaurus carcass was scavenged. So if it wasn't a swamp monster like 1920s logic believed, what was it doing then? Two papers and with a bit of personal speculation makes me think it was quite literally the opposite of literally everything people claim to know about it. Firstly, there's this paper: Linky link. It compares between T. rex's, Allosaurus's and Ceratosaurus's neck muscles and jaw mechanics and the implications on feeding behaviour. Basically, it confirms the obvious for T. rex (crushing and sustained force) and Allosaurus (repeated vertical strike motions), but for Ceratosaurus, it claims that it used quick, slashing bites to lacerate prey and cause it to bleed out, in the same way Komodo dragons do (albeit without the venom). Contrary to the idea that things were "dispatched extremelly speedy fashion thanks to it's powerfull, relativelly large and very long toothed jaws", it was likely a very slow, very grim death for prey. The other paper is this: Linky link. This paper basically takes a massive dump all over the hypothesis that Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry was a "predator trap", and suggests instead that the large concentrations of Allosaurus there were the result of a really bad drought which forced theropods (subadult theropods, mind you) to congregate around what would have been a dying pool. It suggests that herbivores showed up, and Allosaurus showed up over a more extended period of time searching for prey and water. Eventually, prey would either die there, or move on to find food or avoid the increasing risk of Allosaurus showing up to drink. Allosaurus were drawn in more by the smell of food and water, only for it to be gone. But I'll let the paper explain the rest. Basically the key point here relating to Ceratosaurus is that Ceratosaurus is the rarest find there. There's over FORTY Allosaurus, three Torvosaurus, but only one juvenile Ceratosaurus. This tells me that Ceratosaurus was the least reliant on that particular water source, while Allosaurus really REALLY needed it. The other thing I wanted to point out was that while Allosaurus and Torvosaurus are known from Morrison and Lourinha, only Allosaurus and Ceratosaurus are known from Tendaguru. And Ceratosaurus is known from all four locations. Yes. All FOUR. Ceratosaurus pops up in Uraguay. And it stays in South America for so long virtually unchanged to the point that we're getting Genyodectes, the front of a set of jaws and teeth belonging to a neoceratosaur from the Mid-Cretaceous of Argentina (coexisting with Tyrannotitan), which was distinguished from Ceratosaurus only by the presence of one extra tooth in each premaxilla. Now, South America in the Early Cretaceous is supposed to be pretty arid, and during the Jurassic, Uraguay should fall within true desert territory - definitely the areas connecting Morrison to South America were very much desert, basically a dustbowl. The speculation from me here is that we also seem to have an animal with unusually proportioned legs. It had legs with a really long femur, really REALLY short shins, and unusually small feet. The femur is too proportionally long compared to the rest of the leg to suggest a running animal. The feet are WAY too small to suggest an animal that spent a lot of time on boggy ground. What the paper above (the one about neck muscles) suggested was that it was very well built for accelerating to a comparatively low speed. What I'm also thinking is that these proportions suggest a very efficient, long distance walker for a theropod. So basically, what I'm trying to say is that instead of an animal built for swimming and preying on turtles and crocodiles and competing with a theropod two metres longer than itself, Ceratosaurus should be seen as more of an arid wilderness specialist, travelling long distances in search of prey and picking off those victims which succumb to the effects of drought and famine, in a most grim and unkind manner. But you are sort of right. Competition would've been rather low between each of the large theropods. But another fun thing to note about Ceratosaurus - while the horns themselves weren't great for fighting, based on certain aspects of the actual horns (more so the parts which indicate what was exposed as keratin, and what was under the skin), and the structure and texture of known elements of the skull, Ceratosaurus was really REALLY built to take a beating. So it's reasonable to suggest that it did fight with its own kind (or other theropods) more than its contemporaries. And you are right about that last part. And I think studies have actually been done on this for Morrison's theropods. But in the case of modern birds, scavengers do actually adhere to a very strict heirarchy between species, notably species of Old World Vultures. And it's almost to the point where some more lightly built vultures NEED the larger, more powerful species to dominate a carcass first. Edited by Incinerox, Feb 14 2016, 11:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| babehunter1324 | Feb 14 2016, 11:38 AM Post #2715 |
![]()
|
But if Ceratosaurus lived in dry and sparsely forested regions why would it have such short legs and profile compressed body? Those seem better suited for an ambush predator that relies on cover than for one that runs down prey in open terrain. Would really walking efficiency make up for those shortcomings? In another way that could somewhat explain the jaw morpholgy of Ceratosaurus, if it prefered mostly barren landscapes prey items would not be available in big numbers, and with those proportionally huge skull and teeth would had helped kill it's prey, probably using multiple attacks and slower methods for larger animals and quicker methods for smaller prey (AFAIK modern Komodo Dragons do seem to kill medium sized preys like boars and deer much faster than the very large aquatic buffalo, using both venom and tackling the prey into submission). As for the way vultures interact around carcasses while it's true that larger species do dominate the rest they generally use intimidation rather than direct attacks on smaller, weaker species, meanwhile some species like the Griffon Vulture and the Rüpell's vulture use intraespecific vilolent against each other a lot more often. |
![]() |
|
| 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














