You know what to do
[spoiler]What is best dino and why is it velociraptor?[/spoiler]
>inb4 marshnigger shits up this thread by screaming about birds or some shit.
He wouldn't really be wrong.
Troodon's brain mass/body weight ratio puts it firmly between the smartest crocodiles and the dumbest birds.
not exactly a paragon of thinking power. It's only really impressive when you realize most theropods had brain sizes proportionately smaller than alligators. Most of them were probably just mouths on legs with not much going on in their heads.
Which kinda explains why we have good fossil evidence of cannibalism in almost every theropod lineage. Even Deinonychus, which had a relatively large brain and is often used as an example of a social theropod- the associated fossils used to support the pack hypothesis include three individuals of Deinonychus that were eaten by their supposed pack mates.
>low intelligence explains cannibalism
But that's wrong. Infanticide can be a good strategy for an alpha male to remove competition, and territorial animals like chimps cannibalize individuals from rival social groups frequently.
>low intelligence explains cannibalism
no, it's just not promising for those trying to cast theropods as social animals.
I don't know of any examples of infanticide among theropods, infants rarely fossilize.
and while the chimp analogy is useful, it throws a wrench in the interpretation of Deinonychus at the Tenontosaurus feed site as both pack mates and victims of their own pack. The evidence would seem to support only one of these interpretations, and there's little question they were killed and eaten by members of their own group.
True best dino incoming
I like magpies. Not only are they really pretty and good at adapting to different environments, they are also one of the most intelligent dinosaurs there are.
>counting birds as dinosaurs
I'm down with that. Vultures need more love.
Not sure about the one your looking for but I will do a minor T. rex dump.
If op had wanted a prehistory thread it would say prehistory general and not dinosaur general.
> Being this mad
Let me guess, BANDM?
>Rhinariums and vibrissae on pre-Triasic sinapsids
Best Holocene dinosaur placing your picture where it belongs.
>Banana sized teeth
>16 feet tall
>50 feet long
>Skull as strong as a fucking boulder
>could run really fast for its size
>Bite force of 10'000lbs per square inch average
> Little arms acted as supports for when it was drinking
they call it king for a reason
>teeth found embedded in several remains with the bone healing around it
Rexes did about as much scavenging and hunting as coyotes. Not like its big fat prey could outrun it anyway.
What is the point of having such huge bony spines on the back so fragile that they could break and cause damage to the animal? Specially considering it would have been on the top of the food chain ,if you are going to use defense as a reason.
There is evidence that those spines used to break a lot throughout the animal's life, so if they were really connected by a sail there would be many kinds of problems.
That being said, I don't know how much of what this guy says is true, but I do like to listen to his stuff.
Except theres is a lot of evidence showing they weren't covered in anything and DID break frequently.
You could say the same thing about a lot of animals.
>No way a peacock would have any of that stuff stuck to it's ass, they'd constantly be breaking and would get caught up in stuff every other step
>>No way a dimetrodon would have any of that sail stuff stuck to it's back, they'd constantly be breaking and would get caught up in stuff every other step
i can do this all day buddy
An the best seeing abilities of all dinosaurs go to
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3rtQPo4HKLY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Its overall size and mass demanded large amounts of nourishment everyday. This is especially when considering it was very evidently homeothermic (aka: warmblooded) and seem to have a hyper-drive metabolism based on the extensive rapid bone healing seen so commonly on tyrannosaurs.
T rex was pretty much forced to hunt actively in order to survive.
Yes, tyrannosaurus likely scavenged as do apex predators to (i.e.sharks, lions, tigers and bears). But it would likely be on the side and made a small percentage of its diet.
Hey! That's not a magpie.
I come from the lands of /tg/, and frequent these boards for inspiration quite often.
It never occurred to me that there'd be a specialized field for it, which is strange considering that I love marine ecology.
And it didn't click for me until I saw this thread.
Strictly speaking, paleontology deals only with the morphology and phylogeny of fossils.
So when people have a discussion about paleontology online, about 99% of the time they're actually talking paleoecology.
If you want to bore people to death, actually study some paleontology and try to talk about it on the interbutts.
If corvids can make hooks, do they have spaces to keep their tools?
If a corvid had a broom closet, would it be a person?
Because spinosaurus is blatantly far too front heavy either way, there was simply no more logical way for it to move on land than to have at least one arm on the ground
This is regardless if you believe in Scott Hartman's unofficial estimates of slightly longer legs.
>doesn't know based zdenek
The legs of spinosaurus were found very well preserved with even most of the bones in its flat feet. This is how we know it had a very short leg ratio.
Seriously, the 2014 specimen is even more complete than the original, as the documentary explains. But the legs and hips is the real highlight, because it forced us to view spinosaurus as an even weirder animal than what we thought prior.
the legs have since been reassigned to a different species from the rest of the skeleton(s).
in fact the 2014 specimen is currently assigned to 4 different species and 2 different genera of dinosaur.
It is speculated to possibly be to another species at best. But technically even the 2005 spinosaurus specimen is even less likely a spinosaurus due to being entirely based on a piece that the original spinosaurus never had to properly compare with.
By far, 2014 is the most valid of the spinosaurus specimens to date.
I found and read some fragments of the study this was based on an "injured" specimen. Apparentely the specimen examinated had several broken spines which caused a deformed and even kinda discontinued sail that would be abnormal otherwise. Also:
>Furthermore, the distal morphology of spines in more complete specimens, including the type fmnh UC 112 and omnh 01727, suggests that the dorsal margin of the sail was located well proximal to the tips of the elongate neural spines.
Basically the end of the sail is the same as it was 5 years ago.
>Implying we haven't found females yet
Even if all the specimens were male and it WAS a case of sexual selection. Having such long spines NAKED and with the respective tissues inside just to impress the sloots would be counterproductive, to the point that it would reduce the overall fitness (basically like if the peacock was found with a 3 meter tail instead of the normal length).
It didn't have, however, the thermoregulating function as they didn't found blood vessels. But it could be some sort of crest like pic related.
No, not really. All is the same but with Scott Hartman's proposed (but unofficial) estimates that spinosaurus legs might have been slightly longer than we thought. That's it, really.
As I explained just above, spinosaurus is still too front heavy. This is why it was likely still quadrupedal most of the time.
no, a published study like last month literally reassigned the legs to a different species entirely.
it's not about Scott or anything else.
We've also found that Ibrahim lied about digging up the 2014 specimen. He actually bought it from a fossil seller that has no idea if it came from one animal or not.
the whole thing was a hoax. Well, not really a hoax, just a spectacular fuck up.
>He actually bought it from a fossil seller that has no idea if it came from one animal or not.
Wasn't that known way before? I think I read on the NatGeo article that he did have contact with some of the fossil sellers, or maybe I misunderstood.
possibly, but that's not what he wrote in his paper.
if he had written in his paper that the bones were obtained without a scientific dig or even a site map there's no way anyone would've taken his "discovery" seriously in the first place.
there's a huge difference between bones that are articulated with each other in the ground and a random pile of bones from all kinds of different animals.
"no, a published study like last month literally reassigned the legs to a different species entirely."
As I expected. It is at best suggesting that it might have been a separate species. This is unproven and speculative at best. However, it is very unlikely that there were two large spinosaurids in the same environment at about the same size eating the same prey.
If anything, we are just looking at a more complete version of the same animal.
The real deinocheirus.
that's one reason I hesitate to offer citations,
I'm guaranteed going to have to spend hours explaining.
Ibrahim had to synonymize three different species and 2 genera to get his "S. aegyptiacus" neotype.
if any of those species he synonymized turn out to be real and distinct species, his neotype doesn't exist.
this study reaffirms the existence of at least one separate genus and two different species in Ibrahim's neotype. Which means it isn't real.
perhaps Ibrahim can hit back and say that Sigilmassasaurus is actually Spinosaurus, but it doesn't look like that's true at all. Most likely Ibrahim's version of Spinosaurus will die a quiet death. It's already dead, the public just hasn't noticed.
Trees looked awfully strange during the Cretaceous period.
>it is very unlikely that there were two large spinosaurids in the same environment at about the same size eating the same prey.
it's not actually unlikely at all.
in fact the T. rex fauna in north america is the only post-Triassic dinosaur fauna I can think of right off the bat that DIDN'T have multiple gigantic theropods competing for the same food. Entire books have been written about that oddity - why no gigantic theropods could compete with Tyrannosaurus.
(spoilers)Is that you trent(/spoilers)
>memeraptor that literally everyone over hypes
They weren't the best dinosaur, not even best raptor by far
Ill post a pic of my favourite dino later i have to get one, but one of my fav raptors is probably euroraptor cause i just think its adorable
I plan on moving cross country with 2 cats and 1 bird in a few years
I currently live in NJ and plan to move to MN
I plan to drive there
Any tips on how to make it an easier ride for my cats? The bird loves car rides, not worried about her.
But how do i let them go to the bathroom? Do i harness train them and pull over every few hours?
Is there any way i can make it relaxing to them at all?
they presumably weren't a carcharadontosaurid. People make mistakes. If they were actually a carcharodontosaurid they'd be published by now.
Even as a hypothetical it's pretty unlikely. Usually when gigantic theropods competed, they were of the same genus. The Morrison Assemblage is probably the most diverse known, but even then there appear to have been at least two species of Allosaurus present, and at least two species of Ceratosaurus, together making 4 of the 5 gigantic theropods present in the fauna. The only weird outlier was Torvosaurus.
the other problem is that the skull features used to ID carcharodontosaurs are the same ones used to ID animals as tyrannosaurs, and even then they're not useful for identification.
I mean, skull-wise, a carcharodontosaur is identified primarily by the presence of the jugal fenestra (pneumaticization of the jugal), presence of the maxillary fenestra, and expansion of the antorbital fossa.
these exact same features are used to ID tyrannosauroids (i.e., there's no difference between the skull of a tyrannosauroid and an allosauroid). With tyrannosaur skulls another key point concerns the teeth, they have a fore-aft heterodonty with a D-shaped basal cross section of the PM teeth. Unfortunately this same arrangement is ALSO found in allosauroids.
In fact, if you start poking around enough, you find all these characters of the skull in other theropod groups as well. Dromaeosaurs for example are found to have jugal foramina, maxillary fenestrae, expansion of the antorbital fossae, heterodonty, and PM teeth with a D-shaped basal cross section.
in reality the skull traits used to classify the various taxa of cretaceous theropods are mostly shit, they're found in every group so they're useless for classification.
there's no way to tell most tyrannosauroid skull parts apart from carcharodontosaurid skull parts. Or droaeosaurid skull parts. The distinguishing characteristics of each are actually the same. A problem that plenty of paleontologists have noticed but nobody seems too inclined to try to fix.
Greatest of all time or just a poor man's Spinosaurus?
Obviously this anon is saying that the spinosaurus used its sail to sail through the skies.
it's main source of food was the prehistoric giant flying fish, a fish previously thought to be related to the not extinct and quite a bit smaller flying fish, but now believed to be more closely related to landsharks.
Just like many species of Dimetrodon. God, what are you doing in a paleontology thread?
It is a sin I have never seen this before.
>you will never be a rancher in Cretaceous period
>you will never shoot the velociraptors that threaten your protoceratops herd on a daily basis.
>you will mever raise the orphaned velociraptor chicks because you felt bad about killing their parents.
>you will never domesticate velociraptors and train them to protect your protoceratops.
What's up with all the spikes?
Why does it look so evil?
Utah chicken is best chicken now with pic
Has nothing to do with "denial" when that literally means nothing since we've got concrete evidence of scales. I accept feathers when they are supported by evidence, I support scales similarly.
Phylogenetic bracketing like that to assume feathers (or scales and other traits) can only be used when there isn't any preserved evidence in a particular species, when we have evidence of scales then you can't use bracketing like that as you're essentially overwriting the facts because of how you want dinosaurs to look and are essentially being a "scalefag" in reverse.
did anyone actually read the paper describing that specimen.. it admittedly had broken spines... like finding a rex with a broken leg and then surmising all rexes couldnt walk right.. now every paleo pleb that thinks they know everything cause they watched paleo profiles on youtube thinks Dimetrodon looked like this... I mean spine wise glandular/scaley skin and erect stance is fine but those spines neh
what the fuck are you doing on /an/ then?
Just get back from the natural history museum in Paris they have one of the biggest t rex skull i've seen. Don't know of it's a cast tho.
>pic this bad boy
Where is yours ?
Another pic with a big Carnotaurus.
So i did some homeworks, the biggest T-Rex skull is in Montana, Rockies museum.
Man i would love to live in a dinosaur state to dig up bones.
>you will never discover a Sue-like T-Rex in your lifetime
I'm not into conspiracy theory but this one seems made up.
how the fuck you can have a skull like this ? Even for making advantage it seems retard
>titanoceratops, yeah right.
Yeah even a child could tell it's likely the two same species.
There must be a shiload of fake fossils in museum made by knowlegeable artists. If i was a museum i would not tell i was rob
>this one is a cast head tho.
Looks like the offspring of the one above
the key word was "relative" Titanoceratops was considered Pentaceratops until they where separated, finding Titan having more features in common with Torosaurus although people do contest this
>implying centrosaurus is juvenile pentaceratops
You have no idea what you're talking about
Do you have a source about this ? Can't find if it's a cast. Looks really clean.
Short story i was so happy to have seen dinosaurs i has a few drinks alone and i ordered this. Am i crazy ? It's 18 pounds/9kg
Paid 450$ with the shipping charges. And the dollar is high.
Reply with your favorite Dinosaur.
THIS! THIS! A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!
Stegosaurus and stegosaurs in general have been my favourite since I was young.
Why does T-rex and other dinosaurs when drawn usually have extra fluff on the tail?
because the tip of the tail in some maniraptorans was fused into a single rod-type pygostyle, which was hypothesized to support display feathers. This hypothesis was verified later when a couple dinosaurs were found to have tail fans of display feathers attached to the pygostyle. Of course the pygostyle later took on the role of supporting flight feathers.
So anyways, when feathered dinosaurs are drawn a lot of times the tail fan will be added even if the animal didn't have a pygostyle.
or in the case of T. rex, even if the animal didn't have feathers.
>Close relatives had feathers, and its ancestors had feathers.
or we don't know who their close relatives and ancestors are.
or they lost their feathers secondarily.
yes, if we're counting tyrannosaurids in general we have skin impressions from the back. (Tarbosaurus bataar and "Nanotyrannus").
The evidence also said that this didn't have feathers until very recently.
Granted, this fucker was tiny.
Reminder that terrifying giant lizards evolved into high velocity bullet birds
And some of these birds are '''The One''
I thought that was just a "rule of cool" thing like the feather mohawk.
>thinking Giganoto and Carcharo are bigger then rex
and with Spino resent leg size he might be smaller too
really Anchiornis was the only true known "mohawked" fossil all other fossils with impressions show typical mohawkless feathers