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 (193,449 Views) | |
| Luca9108 | Nov 8 2014, 05:05 PM Post #676 |
![]()
Master of Dinosaurs
![]()
|
Question: Lived Phorusrhacos at the same time like Smilodon? |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Nov 8 2014, 06:02 PM Post #677 |
![]() ![]()
|
Nope. Smilodon lived 2.5–0.01Ma, details depending on the species, roughly pleistocene/holocene. Phorusrhacos lived 20–13Ma in Miocene. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 8 2014, 07:54 PM Post #678 |
![]() ![]()
|
Though Smilodon may have lived alongside Titanis in the southernmost portion of its North American range.
|
![]() |
|
| DinoBear | Nov 8 2014, 08:36 PM Post #679 |
![]()
|
Or relatives of this possible late Pleistocene specimen |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Nov 9 2014, 06:59 AM Post #680 |
![]()
originally, one_piece
![]()
|
which website is the most reliable source of information for paleontology? and which is the worst i used to watch a lot of paleo documentary from Nat Geo and Discovery when i was younger, but now i realize they are not very trustworthy |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Nov 9 2014, 07:57 AM Post #681 |
![]() ![]()
|
Wikipedia is fairly reliable (though still sometimes fails) when it comes to info. I check Dinosaur Mailing List for news. Try Paleobiology Database if you need fossil locations. These are off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more
|
![]() |
|
| Swimming Spaghetti Monster | Nov 9 2014, 08:38 AM Post #682 |
![]()
|
Here you have a nice database of Baltic region fossils. One of the best sites on the Burgess Shale. Maybe not so much information, but plenty of realistic reconstructions. Seas of Mesozoic North America. If you want more details, search for the paper on the thing you want. |
![]() |
|
| Taurotragus | Nov 9 2014, 02:08 PM Post #683 |
![]() ![]()
|
Would larger ceratopsians(Bravoceratops,Torosaurus,Triceratops) have quills or spines or both. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 9 2014, 02:09 PM Post #684 |
![]() ![]()
|
IIRC it's now believed that quills were restricted to primitive ceratopsians like Psittacosaurus, more derived ones probably either had spines or lacked bristly integument of any sort. |
![]() |
|
| Taurotragus | Nov 9 2014, 02:38 PM Post #685 |
![]() ![]()
|
What do the spines look like? |
![]() |
|
| Yi Qi | Nov 9 2014, 02:41 PM Post #686 |
![]() ![]()
|
We have NO WAY to prove they didn't have quills, we only know they had spines, for all we know they could have (and likely had) both. If they had quills and the shape of the spines is entirely up to speculation. @Diablo: Like i said, their shape is up to especulation, but something like this:
Edited by Yi Qi, Nov 9 2014, 02:50 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Nov 9 2014, 04:14 PM Post #687 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
it was never really believed that later ceratopsians had them people just learned of psittacosaurus and then they jumped on the bandwagon following a vague plausibility psittacosaurus is so highly derived that there's really not much reason to assume a connection like that there's also no reason to assume later ceratopsians lacked quills, just that to give them quills is speculative the "spines" of triceratops are a matter of much debate, they could (unlikely) have been the base for some form of quill, they might have supported large spines, or they might have been small "semi-circle" lumps |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Nov 9 2014, 04:58 PM Post #688 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Here's the evidence you need: Triceratops - Skin fossils with round scales with a unique knob in their centre, each surrounded by a rosette of large, but more typically shaped scales. Chasmosaurus - Skin fossils with a mosaic of scales arranged in rosettes around larger, rounder ones. Centrosaurus - Skin fossils with a mosaic of scales arranged in rosettes around larger, rounder ones. May have had a row of spikes down the midline of its back. All species have large portions of their skin intact, most of which coming from the back and over the hips. Trike was doing something weird and unusual among ceratopsians. Not only that, we know that the bristles of Psittacosaurus were more akin to iguana spines than feather quills under a microscope, and it was literally the only ceratopsian with skin impressions to be known to have them. Quills on advanced ceratopsians are possible, but it seems very unlikely given the known material. To suggest we lack evidence to prove otherwise is IDENTICAL to suggesting the evidence of Bigfoot. "Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence". It's total bogus. Hell I ranted about this very subject in the "What annoys you about Paleontology" topic not too long ago. About this very freakin argument, no less. |
![]() |
|
| Yi Qi | Nov 10 2014, 12:45 AM Post #689 |
![]() ![]()
|
Y'know, i actually agree with that, i was just saying that people shouldnt jump to conclusions or affirm something as certain when in fact its not, specially regarding something such as paleontology, where nothing is certain and nearly everything is possible. Now i was unaware there were more ceratopsian impressions other than triceratops and chasmosaurus, or that they were extensive ( i tought most of the trike and chas skin impressions were isolated small pieces of skin?), so i made my judgment assuming we only knew a part of the skin of the animal which is nowhere near the necessary to rule out the presence of quills, looks like i must've been wrong. In that case, i have a question, how extensive are the impressions and how much we have ? |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Nov 10 2014, 07:31 AM Post #690 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Trike: Spoiler: click to toggle Chasmosaurus: Spoiler: click to toggle Centrosaurus: Spoiler: click to toggle I couldn't get many pics for Centrosaurus, but it's AMNH 5427 if ye wanna go on a quest yerselves. But other than the slight difference in the round scales for trike, it seems that representatives for both centrosaurines and chasmosaurines share pretty similar, scaly integument. Edited by Incinerox, Nov 10 2014, 07:32 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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

















