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 (193,307 Views)
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


BossMan, Jake
Mar 19 2016, 11:05 PM
Many dinosaur skeletons or any prehistoric animal of that matter are usually not the actual bones but instead castings. What do they makes these placement bones out of?
It varies. Plaster is pretty common, I think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

BossMan, Jake
Mar 19 2016, 11:05 PM
Many dinosaur skeletons or any prehistoric animal of that matter are usually not the actual bones but instead castings. What do they makes these placement bones out of?

Also Incinerox that article about Sereno's Rex skin is on the previous page ;)
I must've missed it first time round.

BH1 6230 is Wyrex. Everyone knows about that specimen's skin samples at this point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan The Man
Member Avatar
Honorary Party Member

BossMan, Jake
Mar 19 2016, 11:05 PM
Many dinosaur skeletons or any prehistoric animal of that matter are usually not the actual bones but instead castings. What do they makes these placement bones out of?
here ya go
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheToastinator
Member Avatar
A piece of toast and a terminator.

Did Triceratops horridus and Triceratops prorsus coexist?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


IIRC it's currently believed that T. horridus was directly ancestral to prorsus, so the short answer is no.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


CyborgIguana
Mar 22 2016, 11:02 PM
IIRC it's currently believed that T. horridus was directly ancestral to prorsus, so the short answer is no.
Uhh that doesn't mean anything, just because something gave rise to a different species/lineage doesn't mean that it must become extinct, it just means some individuals of said lineage diversified enough to be considered a different species.

Homo heidelbergensis is thought to be a direct ancestor of the earliest homo sapiens, yet they existed together for quite some time. Or if you want a modern example Guanacos and Vicunas are doing just fine, even if some of their lineages gave rise to Llamas and Alpacas.

I don't know about Triceratops but i just felt like i had to reply to this because the main reasoning behind this statement is false, things don't just go extinct because they gave rise to other things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Is there even a way to actually answer that question definitively anyway? Because, as chronospecies, the whole transition between T. horridus and T. prorsus will inevitably be a massive blur anwyay. When does T. horridus end and T. prorsus begin?

But if you can pin down the point of species transition to a single individual and go "YES, THIS ONE IS T. PRORSUS", then I suppose the answer would be "yes, they coexisted".

@BF: While your point is perfectly valid, it would require that one population of the source species be unchanged, while the other undergoes its transition to something new. For your example to work for Triceratops, it would require one population in the Hell Creek ecosystem to be changing at a faster rate than the rest of the species, then radiating outward and outcompeting the unchanged T. horridus. It's a completely reasonable hypothesis, no doubts there. But if such changes were spread across the whole population, or the majority at least, then I'd have to refer you back to my first paragraph.
Edited by Incinerox, Mar 23 2016, 08:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathius Tyra
Member Avatar
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life

Wasn't llama and guanaco seperated by human's domestication? Making them unable to normally breed with each other, and their bloodline going in parallel until one became llama.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Yi Qi
Mar 23 2016, 01:23 AM
CyborgIguana
Mar 22 2016, 11:02 PM
IIRC it's currently believed that T. horridus was directly ancestral to prorsus, so the short answer is no.
Uhh that doesn't mean anything, just because something gave rise to a different species/lineage doesn't mean that it must become extinct, it just means some individuals of said lineage diversified enough to be considered a different species.

Homo heidelbergensis is thought to be a direct ancestor of the earliest homo sapiens, yet they existed together for quite some time. Or if you want a modern example Guanacos and Vicunas are doing just fine, even if some of their lineages gave rise to Llamas and Alpacas.

I don't know about Triceratops but i just felt like i had to reply to this because the main reasoning behind this statement is false, things don't just go extinct because they gave rise to other things.
Oh true, sorry about my idiot reasoning! :whack:

I basically just used the "if humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?" argument that YECs love.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Mathius Tyra
Mar 23 2016, 08:58 AM
Wasn't llama and guanaco seperated by human's domestication? Making them unable to normally breed with each other, and their bloodline going in parallel until one became llama.
It doesn't matter to the point in question, be it humans or a mountain, or, whatever other barrier really, one species doesn't necessarily needs to go extinct for other to develop from it.

I.E: The late Homo hominines i mentioned.

@DG: I wasn't really answering the question, as i myself had no idea, i was just pointing out the flaws on Cyborg's argument.

Quote:
 
I basically just used the "if humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?" argument that YECs love.


Yeah that was really the only thing bothering abot that post, but other than that, the question if the two species of Triceratops coexisted is a valid question, it's just one that i sadly don't know the answer to.
Edited by Yi Qi, Mar 23 2016, 06:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
I Raptus
Member Avatar
What are ya lookin' at?

Did Macrauchenia really have a trunk? Some sources I've read said it didn't likely have the muscular support in its skull for a trunk.
Edited by I Raptus, Mar 24 2016, 11:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

I believe that now that paleontologists have a better understanding of mammalian fossils I think they're starting to lean towards them not having one similar to this reconstruction.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


I Raptus
Mar 24 2016, 11:32 AM
Did Macrauchenia really have a trunk? Some sources I've read said it didn't likely have the muscular support in its skull for a trunk.
The short answer is, we don't know yet. Some studies have propposed that they lacked a trunk based on the fact that their muscular insertions look very different from modern trunked animals. However we actually don't have anything living in the world with nasal insertions quite like the machraucheniids, and while different, their nasal cavities could very likely have supported a trunk.

So at this moment, any of the two onterpretations is equally likely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PrimevalBrony
Member Avatar
Youtuber. Combat robotics fan

The placement of Viavenator in Abelisauridae. Where exactly is it: Carnotaurinae or Majungasaurinae?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
babehunter1324
No Avatar


The nasal openings of Macrauchenia do look pretty similar to those of some Sauropods, but considering how different the facial soft tissue of mammals and archosaurs is it might had still be very different in spite of the skeletal similarities...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply