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 (193,302 Views) | |
| Incinerox | Apr 9 2016, 07:06 AM Post #2881 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Oh THIS guy. I find his blog very hit-or-miss. Like, none of what I've seen is, in my opinion, outright brash or silly, but he oversteps his what would otherwise be very reasonable logic. For example, he posts very reasonable arguments for an underwater-walking Spinosaurus, and also makes a strong case for it being clumsy on land, and his speculation on soft tissue is within reason... But then he oversteps it all by implying it could only slide around on its belly, which ignores the difficulty of trying to slide an awkwardly shaped 9 ton block of meat and bone over uneven terrain using what he himself implies are legs too weak to do so. It's a good dose of speculative thinking that I enjoy in paleoreconstruction, but I'd take it all with a pinch of salt. I think it was he that wrote a blog on the evolutionary arms races between sauropods and araucarias, and the solid throats of stegosaurids and the spiny leaves of cycads that protect the fruiting cones in the middle. I liked those arguments. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Apr 9 2016, 07:12 AM Post #2882 |
![]() ![]()
|
This one's new for me, care to further explain it, please ? |
![]() |
|
| Mathius Tyra | Apr 9 2016, 08:51 AM Post #2883 |
![]()
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life
![]()
|
So, Is Neovenator still in its own family, Neovenatoridae or has it been moved to Carcharodontosauridae like some source claims? |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Apr 9 2016, 10:26 AM Post #2884 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
I thought it was a neovenatoride in a branch of carcharodontosauroids? |
![]() |
|
| TheNotFakeDK | Apr 9 2016, 10:36 AM Post #2885 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
Going by the revised phylogenetic definition of Carcharodontosauridae sensu Benson (2010), Neovenator is excluded: The most inclusive (stem-based) clade comprising Carcharodontosaurus saharicus but not Neovenator salerii, Allosaurus fragilis or Sinraptor dongi. So Neovenator is still a member of Neovenatoridae, although depending if any other taxa are also neovenatorids, the clade may as well be equivalent to Neovenator itself if it's the only member. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Apr 9 2016, 10:42 AM Post #2886 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.hk/2012/06/cycad-fiddleheads-and-stegosaur-neck.html He explains it better. His best post was this: http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.hk/2015/09/terror-birds-cometh-new-theory.html Edited by Incinerox, Apr 9 2016, 10:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| nashd1 | Apr 10 2016, 01:23 PM Post #2887 |
![]()
|
Hi Duane Nash (Oh THIS guy) from antediluvian salad here. As i am always on the lookout for critique or comments and ways to improve my thinking or ideas if I could muster some more detailed analysis from Incinerox or others that would be of much value. Or better yet take them to my comments section where they will be viewable by visitors to my site. While I do imbue my posts with lots of speculation it is defensible and within the realm of what animals do today. I do feel my take on Spinosaurus belly sliding is taken out of context and misrepresented by Incinerox. According to Ibrahim et al. the ilium was diminished as well as knee joint all of which are necessary for bipedal stance - at the same time the site of attachment for the caudemofemoralis muscle was greatly enlarged. This creates a bit of an enigma - an animal that can kick back hard but does not appear that well equipped to stand up on terra firma. This same kick back motion would be used to facilitate belly sliding somewhat similar to penguins or loons. The legs were tremendously strong in the lateral realm but substantially weaker in the vertical realm. The main substrate it was doing this across was slippery tidal muds and some sands. In this view it was not traversing difficult terrestrial terrain and is fairly limited (and vulnerable) in that regard. Best, Dune Nash |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Apr 10 2016, 01:52 PM Post #2888 |
![]() ![]()
|
Hi, thanks for taking the time to comment and clear a few things up. Really enjoy your blog BTW. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Apr 10 2016, 03:51 PM Post #2889 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Did... Duane Nash actually post here? O_o How did he find this place? Did I accidentally open a portal and summon Duane Nash himself to this forum!? ANYWAY. Thanks for clearing that up. I still have a couple of questions about Spinosaurus's terrestrial movement, so I'll post them here anyway, and comment on your blog directly tomorrow if I have time. It's fairly obvious at this point that whatever happens, Spinosaurus was clumsy on land. At this point I have no particular preference for any proposed means of movement, be it quadrupedal, bipedal or belly sliding (I mean, I would LIKE it to be quadrupedal for novelty's sake, but of the three so far, this is the most challenging hypothesis to make a case for - not that nature cares what one person on the internet thinks anyway). But I'm still confused. Even though it's fairly obvious that Spinosaurus had comparatively weaker legs vertically, does that really mean it was totally incapable of lifting its body off the ground to walk at all? Not even for some clumsy waddle, or if it actually DID support some of its weight with its arms? Because what I personally find tricky about this is how it stops its own movement from damaging its belly and sternum if its own weight dug the front half of its body into the substrate under it. I mean, giant crocodiles do the same I suppose, but they at least have forelimbs that can pick their own bodies up and avoid that particular problem. And if it was restricted to belly sliding on slippery mudflats or sand, how did the genus, and perhaps its entire clade, spread across North Africa and Northern Brazil? Aren't expansive mudflats quite limited in even extensive swampy areas? Or do you mean that it would have lived along anywhere with a reasonable sized coastal beach, which I suppose would increases viable habitats by a fair margin. But how would Spinosaurus hunt in sea water, as an underwater walker rather than a full swimmer? So many questions! o.o Edited by Incinerox, Apr 10 2016, 03:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| PrimevalBrony | Apr 10 2016, 04:29 PM Post #2890 |
|
Youtuber. Combat robotics fan
![]()
|
Am I the only one that sees the connections between a dromaeosaur claw and the modern karambit? |
![]() |
|
| Ztlabraptor211 | Apr 10 2016, 04:39 PM Post #2891 |
![]() ![]()
|
If I'm not mistaken that was the idea of the Karambit design, to do the same thing dromeosaur claws did to hunt |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Apr 10 2016, 04:53 PM Post #2892 |
![]() ![]()
|
But whatever, I know what you meant. EDIT: Oh NVM, just found out what a karambit actually is, assumed it was a bird for whatever stupid reason.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Apr 10 2016, 04:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Apr 10 2016, 08:07 PM Post #2893 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
It's actually a South East Asian farming tool turned close combat weapon inspired by the claws of big cats. The similarities between them and dromie claws are only coincidence. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Apr 10 2016, 08:22 PM Post #2894 |
![]() ![]()
|
Assuming it's older than the mid 20th century I don't think it could've been inspired by dromaeosaur claws. |
![]() |
|
| nashd1 | Apr 11 2016, 03:36 AM Post #2895 |
![]()
|
I found this chat because my blogger gives me the info on where my posts get linked to. Good questions, as you know I can only offer the vaguest answers to them at this point. One thing about Spinosaurus that I think should offer better insight on how such a weird and wondrous beast got around both in its immediate environment and possibly (Oxalia is a South American spinosaurus? same genus? not sure...) across small ocean barriers is to put it in its proper environmental context. Forget about how you think the boundary between land, ocean, and river operates today with our relatively high continents and low ocean levels. Spinosaurus lived in a hot house world with low continental relief and high ocean levels. North Africa especially, bordering the Tethys sea and interfaced greatly with the ocean. The tremendous storms produced with extreme global warming, relatively higher tidal swings than today, and episodic monsoons would have created a tremendous "slosh" between the land and sea. This was the habitat of Spinosaurus. Episodic mega-storms could potentially created the rafting scenarios that would have enabled Spinosaurus to spread, even if it was not a good swimmer. It might sound strange but such mega-storms do occur and would be more common in a hot house world reshuffling the deck ecologically. As for the specifics of terrestrial movement that is still an open question to most BUT if the proportions of Ibrahim et al are more or less correct and the COG was way ahead of the hips I don't see how classic bipedalism can be retrieved. Belly sliding powered mainly by the legs - possibly with some help from the arms - is what I think was going on. It would have looked clumsy, awkward and very vulnerable but then again so do loons and penguins. |
![]() |
|
| 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












