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 (193,230 Views)
54godamora
Member Avatar


ok then.

other question: what are some of the largest non- dinosaurian predators of the Triassic that have their limbs under their body?
Edited by 54godamora, Jan 14 2018, 05:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
magpiealamode
Member Avatar
No good hero is a one-trick phony.

What immediately comes to mind is the rauisuchians, which, though they're not currently considered an actual clade, does represent a group of Triassic predators with erect stances. They are pseudosuchians, so, related to dinosaurs, but much more closely related to crocodiles. Their hips evolved a stance known as "pillar erect", where the socket faced downwards, nestled under a shelf of bone, like so:
Posted Image

Most would have looked something like this in life, although this reconstruction might be outdated:
Posted Image
Edited by magpiealamode, Jan 14 2018, 10:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
54godamora
Member Avatar


question: isn't saurosuchus an rauisuchid?

also: what are the largest known dicynodonts?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheNotFakeDK
Member Avatar
200% Authentic

54godamora
Jan 14 2018, 11:41 PM
question: isn't saurosuchus an rauisuchid?
Not with the way Rauisuchidae is currently defined, no. Rauisuchidae is defined as to exclude the crocodylomorphs. However, because crocodylomorphs are actually nested well within typical "rauisuchians", Rauisuchidae is limited exclusively to the group that split from the crocodylomorphs. That means that Saurosuchus and several other typical "rauisuchians" that are outside of the rauisuchid-crocodylomorph split cannot be included in Rauisuchidae.

54godamora
Jan 14 2018, 11:41 PM
also: what are the largest known dicynodonts?
There are some out there that are suggested to be pretty flippin' big, like Elephantosaurus, but they're pretty fragmentary and their size is difficult to gauge. The largest dicynodonts we can reliably judge the size of would be the big Triassic stahlekeriids like Placerias, Ischigualastia, Jachaleria and so on. A purported 5-6 metre monster of a dicynodont is reported from the same locality as Smok, but it hasn't been formally described yet so we can't make a firm call on its size yet.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Galliwasp
Member Avatar
There is a way out. Just not for you.

So what's all this about Tyrannosaurus apparently having orange brows, a cowl of bristly feathers on the nape of its neck, and dark patches on its skin?

Curiously, I've only seen this reported in trashy tabloids. Anyone seen the documentary they refer to? (It's not in the U.S.)

If true, it's a far sigh of relief from the myriad of disappointing ways I've dreaded it looking (mainly gray, fleshy, elephantine, mostly featherless, red-faced, etc).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

Galliwasp
Jan 21 2018, 11:09 AM
So what's all this about Tyrannosaurus apparently having orange brows, a cowl of bristly feathers on the nape of its neck, and dark patches on its skin?

Curiously, I've only seen this reported in trashy tabloids. Anyone seen the documentary they refer to? (It's not in the U.S.)

If true, it's a far sigh of relief from the myriad of disappointing ways I've dreaded it looking (mainly gray, fleshy, elephantine, mostly featherless, red-faced, etc).
That entire documentary is nonsense. Don't trust a word of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acinonyx Jubatus
Member Avatar
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!

stargatedalek
Jan 21 2018, 12:58 PM
Galliwasp
Jan 21 2018, 11:09 AM
So what's all this about Tyrannosaurus apparently having orange brows, a cowl of bristly feathers on the nape of its neck, and dark patches on its skin?

Curiously, I've only seen this reported in trashy tabloids. Anyone seen the documentary they refer to? (It's not in the U.S.)

If true, it's a far sigh of relief from the myriad of disappointing ways I've dreaded it looking (mainly gray, fleshy, elephantine, mostly featherless, red-faced, etc).
That entire documentary is nonsense. Don't trust a word of it.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. The Real T. rex was, overall, a pretty good dinosaur documentary- WAY better than things like Clash of the Dinosaurs. It's main problem is that it takes possibilities and presents them as fact. The science they used to reconstruct its sounds, possible feather coverage, and colour patterns was sound, but the results they came up with are just a few of the many, many possibilities. Saying the whole thing's nonsense is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Regardless of its problems, it presents at least a halfway accurate T. rex, and I think if there was more media like it it'd go a long way towards destroying the JP-style image that most people associate with Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

I would hardly say that, the reconstruction is shrink-wrapped and the feathers are presented extremely unrealistically, like giant 20 foot long stalks of down.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Posted Image

I must ask, what documentary are you watching?

It's hardly perfect, but it's hardly shrinkwrapped either. As for the integument:
Posted Image

Could be better, but it's not exactly bad either when you compare it to particularly hairy elephants.

A lot of the speculation in the documentary weren't as concrete as this discussion made it out to be either. They were actually presented as speculation on what T. rex could have been like.

Wasn't perfect, but it's a bit harsh calling the whole thing nonsense, to be honest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

I can see the outline of the skull, that's shrink-wrapped, not sure how you can argue otherwise.

That's a baby elephant, it's hair is a lot shorter than you make it seem. The feathers on that Tyrannosaurus are at least a meter long, they shouldn't be able to stand up like that.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
magpiealamode
Member Avatar
No good hero is a one-trick phony.

Posted Image

For the sake of argument here is Jeff Goldblum, who is in my opinion a strange-looking man, but one with a normal human face. In the image you can see the outline of his skull in several places. I wouldn't say his face has been shrinkwrapped, and I don't think the T. rex is much more revealing. Bones show through, it's what we vertebrates get for having large, rigid objects inside our bodies.

Not gonna lie, that's a pretty ugly reconstruction. I wouldn't call it nonsense, though.
Edited by magpiealamode, Jan 23 2018, 08:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acinonyx Jubatus
Member Avatar
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!

magpiealamode
Jan 22 2018, 07:27 PM
Posted Image

For the sake of argument here is Jeff Goldblum, who is in my opinion a strange-looking man, but one with a normal human face. In the image you can see the outline of his skull in several places. I wouldn't say his face has been shrinkwrapped, and I don't think the T. rex is much more revealing. Bones show through, it's what we vertebrates get for having large, rigid objects inside our bodies.

Not gonna lie though, that's a pretty ugly reconstruction. I wouldn't call it nonsense, though.
Exactly. And here's a blog post by Mark Witton to drive the point home:

https://markwitton-com.blogspot.ca/2017/08/the-convention-of-shrink-wrapping.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossAggron
Member Avatar
Formerly Dilophoraptor

it doesn't seem shrink wrapped on the skull at all, I can't even see the antorbital fenestra at all, which can generally be used as a benchmark for the tightness of the skin. the only one that could be made a case is the orbit, but even then, it looks like it's surrounded by a raise of keratin rather than the skin in that area being sunken in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

I meant the back edge of the skull, which should not be visible as that is where it anchors to the neck. The "crests" following the shape of the underlying skull is, to be frank, an enraging trope, but technically plausible.

Human (and frankly, most mammal) skulls are not a good reference of comparison for theropods. Our chins, cheeks, and eyes are so prominent they make up more or less most of our appearance, but that isn't true of a theropod. Our skulls specifically are also quite oblong, what we think of as the top or back of the skull is really the middle of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

I honestly hate how they depicted the Trex, while it is a step in the right direction I'm getting more Godzilla/Kaiju vibes from it...Again a step in the right direction however there is still more work that needs to be the done.
Some things I've noticed is that the lower ja is way to short, the arms are to small and the brows seem to exaggerated and the legs are to narrow and might even say to bird like
Edited by BossMan, Jake, Jan 23 2018, 12:04 AM.
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