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 (193,282 Views) | |
| Incinerox | Jun 19 2016, 04:07 AM Post #3181 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Lots, actually. Our best one comes from Sauropelta, which fits your clubless criteria perfectly: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Sauropelta.jpg Scolosaurus to my immediate knowledge is our best clubbed ankylosaur skin sample: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kcRcCnwnhVU/UzompQP3PHI/AAAAAAAABnM/IMd65hNmO-8/s1600/scolo.jpg Ankylosaur skin data usually comes from the back. Between each of the rows of osteoderms and stuff, was a mosaic of thick, heavy scales (enlarged versions of what you'd expect to see on a dinosaur), which were arranged in vertical bands to allow for a degree in flexibility. On top of that, all known ankylosaur skulls preserve large ossified scales across the top of the head, the cheeks, and in some cases even the eyelids, which would have been visible in life. Each species had distinguishable scale and horn arrangements. So I suppose those count too. |
![]() |
|
| babehunter1324 | Jun 19 2016, 04:24 AM Post #3182 |
![]()
|
We also had a lot of armor material for Europelta but I'm pretty sure the armor plating we found isn't articulated... |
![]() |
|
| Paleop | Jun 19 2016, 10:05 AM Post #3183 |
|
Paleopterix
![]()
|
could Alioramus be a young tarbosaurus? |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jun 19 2016, 10:45 AM Post #3184 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Nope. The fact there's two species, and the existance of Qianzhousaurus put that hypothesis in the dirt. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jun 19 2016, 01:35 PM Post #3185 |
![]() ![]()
|
That and the fact that I think we have ACTUAL juvenile Tarbosaurus now (correct me if I'm wrong). |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Jun 19 2016, 11:55 PM Post #3186 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
I believe so?... I know we have really young specimens like 2 year olds So I'm now seeing that Ankylosaurus was smaller then I thaught around 23 feet so what is currently the largest known Ankylosaur? |
![]() |
|
| Mathius Tyra | Jun 20 2016, 12:04 AM Post #3187 |
![]()
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life
![]()
|
Still Ankylosaurus, I think. The dinosaurs in this group just aren't actually large animal... |
![]() |
|
| TheNotFakeDK | Jun 20 2016, 12:44 AM Post #3188 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
As far as I'm aware, the largest Ankylosaurus specimen (and the largest ankylosaur period) is a specimen with an estimated length of 6.3 metres and a mass of 7.5 tonnes. Admittedly, this would seem somewhat small compared to other groups, but the specimen itself is still pretty flippin' big, and it really comes across when you see the fossil: Spoiler: click to toggle
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jun 20 2016, 05:39 AM Post #3189 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
They made up for it by being really REALLY wide animals. Isn't a large ankylosaurine supposed to be as wide as a moderately sized sauropod?
Edited by Incinerox, Jun 20 2016, 05:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| babehunter1324 | Jun 20 2016, 06:46 AM Post #3190 |
![]()
|
Well the skull of Ankylosaurus itself was wider than it's total lenght. That said they aren't the only extra wide Dinosaurs, if memory serves me right there was a Triceratops specimen which torso was wider than it was long. |
![]() |
|
| Paleop | Jun 20 2016, 10:22 AM Post #3191 |
|
Paleopterix
![]()
|
allot of people have confused my spino as to having feathers (it does not have them). Some people have questioned why spino couldn't have feathers. so, is it likely spinosaurus had feathers? |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jun 20 2016, 10:40 AM Post #3192 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I don't see how that's possible. Maybe if it has the proportions of a lionfish... Securely in the unknown. Everything older than Averostra - Unknown Ceratosauria - No feathers (at most vestigial feathers equivalent to elephant hairs) Megalosauroidea - Unknown Carnosauria - At least some members had a limited extent of feathers Coelurosauria - All should have feathers Take note that Ceratosauria is in a likely position to have lost any feathers they may have held ancestrally, so take their absence with salt in terms of generalized interpretations like this. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jun 20 2016, 10:58 AM Post #3193 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
I'd actually weigh in via an alternative route here. Spinosaurus is increasingly shown to be an aquatic animal. Many large, aquatic mammals have evolved to lose their hairs for the sake of streamlining, or because their use as insulators no longer applies in water. Yes, I am aware that true feathers and fur function differently when it comes to insulation (fur being a heat trapper, while feathers allow for more regulation). And I am aware that no modern bird has lost feathers in an evolutionary preference for a waterborne existance. I am also aware that pinnipeds and otters did not make that change either. That is because they are either comparatively small and/or live in pretty cold waters. The trends I refer to here are those relevant to elephants and their relatives, the sirenians. Not to mention hippos and their relatives, the cetaceans. They seem to share similar origins as spinosaurids - having evolved in tropical, estuarine regions along the Tethys coast. But primitive feathers (I'm talking at the compsognathid-tyrannosaurid level) likely looked superficially like, "behaved" like, and insulated like fur. So even assuming that megalosauroids did have that kind of integument (I personally disagree with that concept, but we've had that debate way too many times for another one make any difference), I propose, at least at a speculative level, that Spinosaurus and its kin would have lost their fluff as they got more aquatic. |
![]() |
|
| babehunter1324 | Jun 20 2016, 11:51 AM Post #3194 |
![]()
|
Than the total lenght of the skull, not the entire animal. The figures I found are roughly 65 cm long and around 71 cm at it's widest point near the base. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jun 20 2016, 12:05 PM Post #3195 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I hadn't actually intended to imply any particular way. Judging from a broad perspective can of course only get you so far, and leaves much up to individual interpretation (as was my intention). I agree bare skin or very fine scales (think pond turtle level fine) makes the most sense for Spinosaurs judging solely by their behavior and anatomy. And since the exact state of soft integument within their phylogenetic "region" is a complete mystery, it makes sense to stick with what we can infer from them directly. Ha-ha whoops. My goof. |
![]() |
|
| 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










