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 (193,457 Views) | |
| Furka | Sep 6 2014, 05:54 PM Post #556 |
![]() ![]()
|
Do we have an idea of what Dreadnoughtus looked like ? Because I've seen reconstructions swinging from Titanosaurian to diplodocidae and even mamenchisaurian look. |
![]() |
|
| Even | Sep 7 2014, 01:01 AM Post #557 |
![]()
|
I think it'd look like a lognkosaurian or Malawisaurus... |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Sep 7 2014, 01:08 AM Post #558 |
![]() ![]()
|
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140904/srep06196/fig_tab/srep06196_F2.html This is official. So it should be accurate. |
![]() |
|
| Mathius Tyra | Sep 7 2014, 07:57 AM Post #559 |
![]()
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life
![]()
|
How do they know it has long Diplodocid-liked skull, btw? |
![]() |
|
| Meerkatmatt2 | Sep 7 2014, 08:11 AM Post #560 |
![]() ![]()
|
They don't it was one of the areas in black, which had not been found, though a small chunk of it has been found. sauropod heads do not preserve well. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 8 2014, 04:32 PM Post #561 |
![]() ![]()
|
Just a quick question, were there any dinosaurs that are known to have inhabited the American state of Indiana? Or even any of the surrounding states. |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Sep 9 2014, 01:13 AM Post #562 |
![]() ![]()
|
Not much I've seen on paleo databases there. Missouri has some indeterminate remains of Ceratosauroidea, possibly Albertosaurus and there's one animal with certain name, Hypsibema missouriensis. Other than that... you'd have to hop more than 2 states away to get more fossilized dinosaurs. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Sep 9 2014, 04:56 PM Post #563 |
![]() ![]()
|
This relates more to evolution in general than to extinct animals specifically, but is there a reason why synapsids are (AFAIK) the only animals to have external sense organs and genitalia? Because after thinking about it, I realized that these parts are internal in almost all non-synapsid tetrapods I'm aware of. I don't recall ever having seen a snake with ears. So what evolutionary advantage, if any, do we gain from having this difference? Not that this is crucial information for me to know, I'm just curious. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Sep 9 2014, 05:07 PM Post #564 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I wouldn't call it an advantage at all, but the ears inner workings are highly derived from other tetrapods so that probably has something to do with it as for genitalia I have no idea, cetacea seem to be the only exception, but I'm not sure thats really a valid comparison given they are aquatic |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Sep 10 2014, 01:25 AM Post #565 |
![]() ![]()
|
It is as of yet unclear when did the highly external sense organs evolve exactly in the synapsid populations. We don't know for certain how did they look in basal Synapsids that resembled their Sauropsid cousins as of yet, we have no idea if even Therapsids had them, but I recall that Non-mammaliaform Therapsid ear was not an external one, and quite a primitive one in that matter. I'd assume that these features are somehow linked to the lifestyle adopted by mesozoic mammals, and thus linked to the early rise of archosaurs that pushed them to the low positions in the food chain. Regarding the external genitalia, it's a misconception that all mammals have them exactly the same. Only order Scrotifera (Bats, Carnivorans, pangolins and ungulates minus cetacea) is one that shares the characteristic of external scrotum, the rest of the extant mammals, with the exception of primates, generally lack this feature. It's not implausible to think that the external scrotum has evolved in multiple clades for various purposes (for example to prevent overheating the testes?). There's little to nothing to work with when it comes to genital appearance of extinct mammals, let alone more basal synapsids because it's all soft tissue. Edited by Similis, Sep 10 2014, 01:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jules | Sep 10 2014, 12:36 PM Post #566 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Are you telling me an entire order is named just because they have external dicks ? Wow
|
![]() |
|
| Bill | Sep 11 2014, 08:40 AM Post #567 |
![]()
originally, one_piece
![]()
|
if these are all the bones they got from a dinosaur, then how did they know how long the neck was?
|
![]() |
|
| Jules | Sep 11 2014, 08:45 AM Post #568 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Proportions of the bones and comparing to related species. |
![]() |
|
| MightyFan217 | Sep 11 2014, 09:53 AM Post #569 |
![]()
OH YESSS!
![]()
|
Quick question. I'm not exactly sure how tall Spinosaurus was known to be, but I do know it was big. Then when it supposedly has shorter legs than we realized (Not confirming anything here), would there be any noticeable size differences between the two different reconstructions of Spinosaurus based on the leg sizes? Edit: To clarify, I'm asking how tall Spino would be provided the new specimen is still the normal length of 50-60 feet that we knew beforehand. Edited by MightyFan217, Sep 11 2014, 03:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 12 2014, 06:10 AM Post #570 |
![]() ![]()
|
Here's some refs.![]() ![]() So, yeah, I believe that would make either Rexy or Carcha the king of height.
|
![]() |
|
| 3 users reading this topic (3 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
























