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 (193,247 Views)
Paleodude
Member Avatar
ex-Krampus

In short, no.

Ceratosaurus has no evidence it lived any kind of semiaquatic lifestyle. It's anatomy dosent suggest this as it has no way to propel itself either by tail or limbs and it more closely resembles a traditional terrestrial theropod than any spinosaur or other amphibious creature.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Honestly after looking at ceratosaurus skeletons from this year (and 2016 lol) it's looking more like ceratosaurus wasn't even adapted for speed either like in earlier renditions. I think it's possible that they favored more forested regions and maybe "swamp like" habitats where their bulk and teeth could do more damage by cornering prey into tight corridors and bullying the prey into submission before consumption.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
babehunter1324
No Avatar


One thing that we have to keep in mind is that despite of how robust Ceratosaurus may look they actually where extremelly narrow from the front compared to most theropods of it's size.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

BossMan, Jake
Feb 12 2017, 03:10 AM
Honestly after looking at ceratosaurus skeletons from this year (and 2016 lol) it's looking more like ceratosaurus wasn't even adapted for speed either like in earlier renditions. I think it's possible that they favored more forested regions and maybe "swamp like" habitats where their bulk and teeth could do more damage by cornering prey into tight corridors and bullying the prey into submission before consumption.
One paper (mostly about bite mechanics between theropods) actually makes a point that Ceratosaurus, while slower overall than Allosaurus, was able to accelerate quicker.

Make of that what you will.

I'm also kinda convinced that Ceratosaurus was more a badland specialist, preferring dry, scrubby environments over forests and swamps.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
magpiealamode
Member Avatar
No good hero is a one-trick phony.

The fascinating but also frustrating aspect of paleontology is that there are things about an animal's biology that are difficult to pull from a skeleton, such as how well it retained water or where all of the fat deposits were. This is stuff that might give us valuable information about each creature's niche and how it would have interacted with others in its environment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Been looking at a few skeletals lately and noticed a few things with Marshosaurus and Torvosaurus, the skull of the former is very much like Torvo's with traits of being a juvenile (short skull, lack of eye ridge and near flat dorsal section) so could it be plausible to say that's Marshosaurus is a juvenile Torvosaurus?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossAggron
Member Avatar
Formerly Dilophoraptor

I don't think we actually have enough of Torvosaurus to put a ruling on that concept, but i like where it's going.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Torvosaurus is actually known from somewhat reasonable remains, and we have several Marshosaurus specimens to compare too.

Conclusion: They were not related. Marshosaurus was found to be a piatnitzkysaurid, while Torvosaurus was sister taxon to Megalosaurus itself.
Edited by Incinerox, Feb 16 2017, 07:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


Speaking of Marshosaurus, what were Stokesosaurus and Marshosaurus even doing in the Morrison Formation? What kind of niche were they filling out exactly, what with three other larger predators in the environment and only a few smaller Dinosaur species that were still not on the super small end of the Dinosaur size scale.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Probably preying on the dozen or so curotarsans, smaller theropods and the plethora of ornithischians in the region.

Prey options were diverse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
babehunter1324
No Avatar


Incinerox
Feb 16 2017, 07:20 PM
Probably preying on the dozen or so curotarsans, smaller theropods and the plethora of ornithischians in the region.

Prey options were diverse.
And baby Sauropods. Many, many baby sauropods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


well, yes, but were they specialized towards one form of prey item?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Not really. Basal megalosauroids are surprisingly generalist compared to their spinosaurid brethren.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
54godamora
Member Avatar


ok really odd question: would dinosaurs have eyeshine?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

eyelashes are hair and we know dinosaurs didn't have hair because they are more linked to reptiles and birds which the ladder supported feathers.

So in short...NO
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply