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 (193,457 Views)
Furka
Member Avatar


Do we have an idea of what Dreadnoughtus looked like ?
Because I've seen reconstructions swinging from Titanosaurian to diplodocidae and even mamenchisaurian look.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Even
No Avatar


I think it'd look like a lognkosaurian or Malawisaurus...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


Furka
Sep 6 2014, 05:54 PM
Do we have an idea of what Dreadnoughtus looked like ?
Because I've seen reconstructions swinging from Titanosaurian to diplodocidae and even mamenchisaurian look.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140904/srep06196/fig_tab/srep06196_F2.html

This is official. So it should be accurate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mathius Tyra
Member Avatar
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life

MrGorsh
Sep 7 2014, 01:08 AM
Furka
Sep 6 2014, 05:54 PM
Do we have an idea of what Dreadnoughtus looked like ?
Because I've seen reconstructions swinging from Titanosaurian to diplodocidae and even mamenchisaurian look.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140904/srep06196/fig_tab/srep06196_F2.html

This is official. So it should be accurate.
How do they know it has long Diplodocid-liked skull, btw?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Meerkatmatt2
Member Avatar


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Oviraptor
Member Avatar


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


Oviraptor
Sep 8 2014, 04:32 PM
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


CyborgIguana
Sep 9 2014, 04:56 PM
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.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jules
Member Avatar
Mihi est imperare orbi universo

MrGorsh
Sep 10 2014, 01:25 AM
Scrotifera
Are you telling me an entire order is named just because they have external dicks ? Wow xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar
originally, one_piece

if these are all the bones they got from a dinosaur, then how did they know how long the neck was?

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jules
Member Avatar
Mihi est imperare orbi universo

Proportions of the bones and comparing to related species.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyFan217
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


Here's some refs.
Posted Image
Posted Image
So, yeah, I believe that would make either Rexy or Carcha the king of height. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply