Post extinct animals that need more exposure in film.

File: gorgosaurus_libratus_by_christopher252-d6e8tsh.jpg (125KB, 1280x780px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1280x780px

>>2110973

File: 2000103-styracosaurus-010.jpg (109KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1200x800px

>>2111163

File: 016__therizinosaurus_cheloniformis_by_green_mamba-d4qncs6.png (724KB, 900x566px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 900x566px

>>2110973
The battle turkey

File: giant-ground-sloth.jpg (145KB, 680x352px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 680x352px

>>2111166
The mammal version

File: chalicothere.jpg (381KB, 1429x925px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1429x925px

The 'gorilla-horse'

File: gomphotherium_angustidens_by_willemsvdmerwe-d77dt51.jpg (312KB, 1094x734px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1094x734px

Gomphotherium.

A very visually distinct elephant type animal from modern elephants and mammoths.

File: shantungosaurus_by_sameerprehistorica-d6l7okv.jpg (342KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1000x500px

>>2110973
Shantungosaurus

File: magnapaulia_laticauda_by_kana_hebi-d922bnw.jpg (142KB, 1280x545px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1280x545px

>>2111185
Or at least

File: 3103-allosaurus-vs-camarasaurus-010.jpg (84KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 900x600px

>>2110973
Allosaurus, but only its more factual size: 25-28ft in length on average, but with a factual above average of 32ft in length.

Smaller than tyrannosaurus, but a better size for a large predatory dinosaur to be interested in humans as prey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSGdowqESaQ

File: speed_paint_deinocheirus_morning_bath_by_fredthedinosaurman-d8490c4.jpg (80KB, 900x563px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 900x563px

>>2110973
Big arm duck monster
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7526/fig_tab/nature13874_F2.html

File: dental_appointment_by_yoult-d75sbda.jpg (74KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x522px

Spinosaurus is officially big in pop-culture, especially die to Jurassic Park 3 and Transformers: Age of Extinction.

But most people see it more as a 1990s Zilla monster. It would be nice to see a more scientifically accurate depiction. As in a more docile fish eater that walk on four limbs.

File: gigantopithecus-400-588-64.jpg (64KB, 400x588px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 400x588px

Biggest ape ever
http://news.discovery.com/animals/endangered-species/did-cavities-kill-earths-largest-ever-ape-140115.htm

Pretty much a factual bog-foot

File: Irish_Elk.jpg (65KB, 500x422px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x422px

http://epiccreature.blogspot.com/2011/08/irish-elk.html

File: Yi Qi.png (1MB, 684x1167px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 684x1167px

The dragon that actually existed

File: acrocanthosaurus_by_apsaravis-d5kvkj2.jpg (47KB, 900x414px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 900x414px

>>2110973
The most awesome and fascinating of all the large carnosaurs

File: dunkleosteus.jpg (49KB, 686x479px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 686x479px

>>2110973
This badass monster fish of horrors

File: smrs_by_xstreamchaosofficial-d9n7jy7.jpg (163KB, 1046x763px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1046x763px

>>2111203
Yeah, I know what you mean.

File: yutyrannus_huali____preening_the_emperor_by_gogosardina-d4v5rnn.jpg (96KB, 900x615px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 900x615px

The large tyrannosaur that defiantly had a coat of feathers.

File: spinosaurus_aegyptiacus_by_gonzalo_fuenzalida-d8uvgps.jpg (69KB, 1264x632px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1264x632px

>>2111203
>>2111227
Factual spinosaurus is far more bizarre, unique, and fascinating than ever before. It could be an excellent water threat.

File: 41c249381dde6c39e50c091f2dad00a2-d9mzv1s.jpg (173KB, 1264x632px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1264x632px

Gorgosaurus was a real ducking badass.
It survived for years with some of the worse injuries ever discovered, all on a single specimen alone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKOrB_vVifo

It need to at least to be mentioned more.

File: Extinction around the world 12.png (577KB, 700x517px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 700x517px

>>2110973
The thylacoleo was the most fearsome marsupial to have ever existed, despite clearly originating from herbivorous

Its front teeth evolved into fang shaped teeth and its carnassial teeth worked more like boltcutters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwUl3ekOQoU

Not to mention its large thumb claws.

>>2111243
Oh, I forgot to mention that they are hunting the prehistoric 10ft tall giant kangaroos.

File: trusler-megalania-990x631.jpg (195KB, 990x631px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 990x631px

>>2111217
That's a true winged dragon called a wyvern.

But here is a true dragon without wings that lived just before the first humans settled in Australia.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/19/australias-giant-venomous-lizard-gets-downsized/
Its venom was known to likely burn like acid, which may have sparked fables of it breathing fire over many translations throughout cultures.

>>2111243
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx5ui7OlZAE

File: bitter_sailed_sauropod_of_the_south_by_scotthartman-d518qb7.jpg (109KB, 1137x703px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1137x703px

One of, if not the most bizarre sauropods ever known.

File: 9f39aa9a083d4350a28493804d0de8a0.jpg (43KB, 600x414px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x414px

Cave-hyenas are basically bigger versions of spotted hyenas, which are very badass as they are today.

File: 1411958219288.jpg (509KB, 1600x925px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 1600x925px

permian is such an interesting time that always gets swept under the rug because dinosaurs are next.

>>2111245
>burn like acid
It didn't
>spawn fables
It didn't.

Megalania has been extinct way WAY too long to be the source of dragon stories.

Dragons were a pretty easy thing to make up. Just take a big lizard or crocodile and apply le spooky demon features to it.

File: usborne encyclopaedia of world history.png (4MB, 1418x1756px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1418x1756px

>>2111221
I have an encyclopaedia that has that thing in it. Also, shown below, the first fish to walk on land.

>>2111328
I have that book.

>>2111163
Looks like a fucking Digimon

File: skeleton, alvarezsaurid, Patagonykus puertai.jpg (61KB, 550x556px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 550x556px

Shanking birds

File: bat-dinosaur.png (284KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 600x451px

>>2111217
Yeah, but chances are it will be depicted as something more resembling scaly SKYRIM dragons, and not really like the actual animal.

File: glyptodont3-hme_grid-6x2.jpg (27KB, 474x313px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 474x313px

Mammalian ankylosaurus

File: Leedsichtys_giant_orthocone_elasmosaurus_dunkleosteus_xiphactinus_cymbospondylus_basilosaurus_archelon_mosasaur_seascorpion_Seamonsters.jpg (66KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x375px

Leedsichthys was the biggest fish to have ever existed. It is only beat in size by modern whales.

File: arthropleura.jpg (53KB, 600x532px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x532px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IST8uZoxJxA

>>2111497

watch out for Dunkleosteus

File: ilinskoe_faunal_assemblage_by_dibgd-d5sryl2.jpg (250KB, 1280x833px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1280x833px

>>2111296
It's a damn shame, because the animals around that time were awesome.

>>2111163
>>2111165
Is it true that the horns of these and other similar dinosaurs were pretty useless for actually pretty useless and could actually either break off or be pushed back into the skull if too much force was applied?

File: Eupakeria.jpg (72KB, 1275x715px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1275x715px

The archosaur ancestor to all dinosaurs
http://walkingwith.wikia.com/wiki/File:Eupakeria.jpg

NOTE: It was not a true dinosaur, but factually lead to dinosaurs.

File: smok-recon588.jpg (28KB, 588x301px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 588x301px

>>2111567
Speaking of archosaurs (which are not dinosaurs, but distantly related) croc monsters like these
https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/what-is-smok/

Saurosuchus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLGsuchUGQU

Postosuchus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7zb3GfO1lw

File: Styracosaurus_body.jpg (1MB, 3356x2059px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3356x2059px

>>2111562
Depends on the horn and species. For example, triceratops two upper horns were very robust and designed to pierce through the rib cage of tyrannosaurus due to coevovolution. However, its lower nose horn was not reinforced enough to deal the same kind of damage as the upper horns; more likely used against smaller threats like nanotyrannus. Either way, it was very unlikely that that part of its skull would be pressured enough to cave in or break.

The part of the skull for the nose horn for styracosaurus is clearly more reinforced than that of triceratops, due to likely using that horn more.

File: kentrosaurus_aethiopicus_by_t_pekc-d65te57.jpg (113KB, 1024x729px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x729px

>>2111608

File: Kentrosaurus_scale.png (56KB, 724x280px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 724x280px

>>2111609
More weapons than stegosaurus, but also a lot smaller.

But Hollywood would likely exaggerate the size, as expect.

File: draw_dinovember_day_30_tyrannosaurus_rex_by_daitengu-d9jbe7e.jpg (120KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x683px

Tyrannosaurus (all dinosaurs, really) with feathers.

File: 71YzOVqEv+L._SL1500_.jpg (182KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1500x1125px

I could imagine a cute animated series of an anomalocaris trying to make it in life.

File: paraceratherium_elephant.jpg (292KB, 1035x575px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1035x575px

>>2110973
Arguably the largest land mammal of all time.

>>2111636
Tell me more that sounds neat.

>>2111636
It was the dominant predator of its time, so life for its would be largely easy compared to others. That is unless it is about a foundling trying to survive in a world where almost everything in the environment could eat it.

File: 200016-carnotaurus-004.jpg (82KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 900x600px

>>2110973
A bizarre large theropod with armor and build to speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slcVvR7UMik

File: disney_s_dinosaur_by_emilystepp-d9oy1br.jpg (255KB, 1221x654px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1221x654px

>>2111647
Well it was used in the early 2000s 'Dinosaur' animated film by Disney. But it was wrongly depicted as tyrannosaurus (large, robust, thickly muscled, brutish, overly willing to challenge virtually anything).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCjCFCYx4yghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex3fai6QZ-c
NOTE: Carnotaurus was known to be a lot larger than what it is officially known to be.
But (1) that movie was like 16yrs ago and (2), it would be better to see it more like how it actually was rather than basically an armored tyrannosaurus.

>>2111814
Here is the other footage I wished to use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex3fai6QZ-c

>>2111235
I disagree
if that was his actual look,I'm pretty disapointed

>>2111259
shit!
if current hyenas are already badasses and menacing,imagine these mothefuckers

>>2111497
Is that really true?
I`ve never seen an article about its fossils or something like that

File: Megalodon.jpg (116KB, 733x731px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 733x731px

A very pleb choice,I know. But it would be awesome to see a decent portraying of this motherfucker

>>2111182
Best pterosaur of all

>>2111847
The answer is maybe. It is as legitimate as the evidence for amphicoelias being the largest dinosaur of all time.

File: tumblr_mb43f05t7s1rhj9cto2_250.jpg (14KB, 250x311px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x311px

>>2111891
Personally the tapejarids are the best. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

>>2111845
Well really, the most legit depiction of spinosaurus pre-2014 was essentially a large suchimimus with a sail. The worse depiction however was the horribly inaccurate kaiju Zillah creature.

Spinosaurus nowadays is not only unique (actual, very distinct qualities) buts it is more awe-inspiring due to showing how different and mysterious a dinosaurs can really be.

File: smithsonian_titanoboa_284.jpg (2MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2000px

>>2111862
The image of it (giant great white) has pretty much been done to death by SciFi alone.

Although, titanoboa might have that problem even worse. The trend for cinema massive snakes was beat to death long before we even knew it existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijXLPE7SB3c

>>2111862
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXiExCuHZDg

File: dracorex-lg.jpg (170KB, 1630x838px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1630x838px

>>2111217
>>2111245
In terms of aesthetics, dracorex had the most dragon-like head.

By the way, this creature could also use to spotlight...

File: wp_large_20071214_7.jpg (156KB, 1600x612px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1600x612px

>>2111943
Remember when dracorex was exaggerated in Primeval?

>>2111945
Experts who advices that show admit it was very inaccurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9X-QPOD37w

But cinema care little about facts and more about entertainment.

Its why tyrannosaurus never one-shots anything in a movie fights, despite evolving jaws specifically to do that in a fights.

>>2111814
>>2111815
Wow I loved this movie when I was a kid. And, despite the obvious anatomical inaccuracies, the CGI actually holds up pretty well

>>2111931
>the snake roars
>chick shoots a bolt action rifle like a semi-auto
why must movies be so retarded, /an/?

File: sinornithosaurus_by_fafnirx-d4fku00.jpg (117KB, 900x635px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 900x635px

Sinornithosaurus was apparently like microraptor, but wit venom. Based on CT scans, it had venom sacks in its upper jaw, but injected the venom like a gilamonster; venom seep down the gums and teeth into the inflicted bite wound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-jpuywa6lg

Imagine one or more of these stalking you from above the trees (especially at night). One bite, and you may die.

>>2111980
Neat. Never knew about this little guy.

>>2111980
the venom idea was withdrawn by the authors shortly after they first published it.

>>2111567
Fukken juicy
>>2111572
>pterosaurheresies

>>2111572
>>2112093
>pterosaurheresies
This triggers me.

>>2112022
Citation needed

File: walking-with-dinosaurs-3d-movie-wallpaper-15.jpg (731KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 1920x1080px

>>2111161
>>2111237
Gorgosaurus was used in the 'Walking with Dinosaurs' remake about 2-3 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04GpAR5awTA

But that movie was less like the original educational series and more like a lesser version of Disney's 'Dinosaur' from the early 2000s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FrFApHjNjE

The only thing this modern 'Walking with Dinosaurs' had over Disney's 'Dinosaur' was that it was more scientifically accurate in terms of the dinosaurs used in the same environment and how they looked. Other than that, it was total garbage.
But the saddest thing is that it could have been so much more; so beautiful and full of wasted potential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyWUDWydOKs

>>2112227
Wow, it is totally obvious that the voice acting was a definite afterthought crowbared into the movie.

Not only did the voice acting sound obnoxiously annoying, but it is not even syncing with the mouth movements. In fact., the mouths are not moving to speak words at all, as if IT WAS BLATENTLY MEANT TO BE A SILENT FILM beforehand; kind of like the show 'Dinosaur Revolution'.

But I guess they thought the majority of people would be too stupid, so they forced degrading bad dialog in the form of a cheap half-assed dub over the original unedited animation... what a waste of potential.

>>2111211
King Louie

>>2112201
>asking for citations on the internet
Just go google it

>>2112239
You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

By the way, there is a lot of misinformation on the internet that I will not decipher for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLgz3wH2n8

If cannot find a source to back your claim, than we are forced to dismiss it as false to unlikely at best

File: Iguanodon1s-.jpg (436KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 800x600px

Iguanadon was supposed to be in JP1, but was replaced by gallimimus. But at least it was used as the main dinosaur for Disney's Dinosaur movie >>2111814

>>2112227
Muting the audio will fix that. You can't do the same with those creepy, over-anthropomorphized iguanadons and lemurs in Disney's Dinosaurs.

>>2112317
The dinosaurs in the recent 'Walking with Dinosaurs' are also pretty anthropomorphic, just not as so; 'Dinosaur' is like 'Lion King' with that, because it was intended to be. But still, who would want to watch a movie simply muted? Vocals without actual words can convey a lot.

Can't someone just edit out the voice acting and instead edit vocal sounds.

>>2112329
>>2112317
>>2112233
>>2112227
I really wish we could have just one good documentary that is basically like wwd. I mean, Planet Dinosaur was alright, Dinosaur Revolution was shit, and all the other bullshit dino shows looked like they were made in Guatemala. And since wwd, there's been no "real" realistic documentary. Wwd felt like you were literally in their world, you were watching them act out their life and was broadly focusing on everything of the show as if it were a lifelong story. All other documentaries had a narrow focus on a short scene of one particular animal.

I was actually so happy the first time I saw their 'remake' premier commercial. It was what I was looking for. And absolutely no dubs(I didn't think it was even a consideration). Then... I saw the next add, and I was devastated. Just ruin shit up like that! I mean seriously!

Just give us a good entirely, up-to-date remake of wwd. Can bbc do that?

>>2112242
he's not the one that made the claim, you lazy fuck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinornithosaurus#Possible_venomous_bite

>>2112329
I heard the Blu-Ray release has an opinion for that. It's the same movie shown in theaters with the voice actors audio removed.

There were more Walking With Dinosaurs? I only remember the original from when I was a kid

>>2112242
>believe wrong thing
>others correct you
>burden of proof is on them, they made the claim!
>nobody likes you enough to give you proof
>go on believing wrong thing

tl;dr: how to win arguments on the internet while still being wrong.

>>2112441
Talk about deliberately leaving out major details like the fact that I had a citation in which is vastly more reliable than a wiki article... All while he "corrected me' (asserting a claim) without even giving a single citation to even mildly support his claim.


If your claim can be asserted without facts or support, than it can also be dismissed as such or at least unlikely.

Unless you want to sound like a fundamentalist Christian...

>>2112448
yet not once did you go on google to see if his claim was correct.

it would've taken you less than 10 seconds.

I assume you have some sort of third world internet that doesn't allow you to use search engines.

>>2112450
>yet not once did you go on google to see if his claim was correct.
That is not my job. The burden of proof should always be on the person making or addressing the claim.

>it would've taken you less than 10 seconds.
That's actually every reason why HE should have done that, not I; takes a trumendious amount of 'mental gymnastics' to not only see the irony, but to basically claim otherwise.
If true, than he should have done that before making the claim...

>I assume you have some sort of third world internet that doesn't allow you to use search engines.
Again, this should not be addressed to me, but rather to the one making the claim.

>>2112455
>That is not my job. The burden of proof should always be on the person making or addressing the claim
there is no "burden of proof" when you're wrong and too stupid to find that out.

Nobody is required to educate you.

>That's actually every reason why HE should have done that, not I
he did.

>>2112459
>there is no "burden of proof" when you're wrong and too stupid to find that out.
Especially if you making or addressing claims on the internet to sway thoughts, yeah you do. otherwise, it can just be dismissed as unlikely at best.

>Nobody is required to educate you.
No, but it is your job to backup or support your own claims... Considering you keep mentioning "we are on the internet" or addressing the information to be very quick to find, they should little to no excuse for not using at least some sort of citation to at least mildly support their position.

But I await your excuses with cognitive dissonance and frothing hypocrisy...

>he did.
Did he really?>>2112022 It must be hidden somewhere in post. Perhaps if we magnify it, we will find it with likely a subtle illuminati triangle... I'm 'sure' of it...

>>2112465
>It must be hidden somewhere in post
and this is why nobody likes posting citations for you -

you're too stupid to understand them anyways.

File: andrewsarchus.jpg (31KB, 494x286px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 494x286px

>>2112465
>I didn't read the citation
>the burden of reading is on the one making the claim.

kek

>>2112473
The Albert Einstein actually withdrawn his conclusion of E=mc2 shortly after publications...

The government actually proved that the Earth was actually flat all along.

God definitely exist.

____

Same line of claiming and addressing...

>>2112485
so you think you have some duty to support those claims, or other people have some duty to argue with them?

I hate to break it to you but nobody here cares if you're stupid. That's your problem, not mine.

File: yutyrannus_huali___border_patrol_by_gogosardina-d4v5qrg.jpg (150KB, 900x458px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 900x458px

>>2111190
Why not yutyrannus instead?

It was basically the tyrannosaur version of allosaurus, but with much stronger jaws, likely much smarter due to being a more advance coelosaur, likely much better vision, and was the first large theropod with direct evidence of having a coat of feathers.

File: megaraptor_namunhaiquii_by_sebasruna-d5iuk7n.png (176KB, 900x621px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 900x621px

>>2112629
Speaking of large armed tyrannosaurus, why not megaraptor? Its hand are the deadliest ever found on a predatory dinosaur; ironic, for a tyrannosaur.

File: the-clawed-hand-of-Megaraptor-namunhuaiquii.jpg (108KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1024x683px

>>2112631
Here is it hand.

File: megaraptor 2014.jpg (85KB, 800x581px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x581px

>>2112631
>>2112632
You are correct that it is most certainly a tyrannosaur
http://www.krank.ie/category/sci/nat/megaraptor-tyrannosaur/

But its head was apparently more like dilong. than albertosaurus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaraptor#/media/File:Megaraptor_bust.png

The hands were farce, but the animal was more of a small prey hunter.

File: ceratosaurus_nasicornis_by_felipe_elias.jpg (50KB, 800x358px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x358px

Just look at the head gear.

Also, it had 4 fingers.

File: aepyornis33.gif (90KB, 417x464px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 417x464px

Elephantbirds are underrated.

File: ELEPHANT BIRD4.jpg (36KB, 306x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 306x400px

>>2112642

File: XZ6qb.jpg (319KB, 2228x1188px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 2228x1188px

>>2110973
The biggest flying bird to have lived.

File: Pelagornis_sandersi.jpg (98KB, 1200x1002px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1200x1002px

>>2112646
But not likely the largest wingspan

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/07/07/worlds-largest-flying-bird-had-24-foot-wingspan/#.VyWhYJXmrX6

>>2112633
>it is most certainly a tyrannosaur
It was originally classified as an allosauroid and only very recently considered a tyrannosauroid.

ignoring the fact that it probably won't be considered a tyrannosauroid next year, don't you think it a bit odd that it would be classified in two such unrelated taxa by people that know far more about bones than you do?

I mean that's weird right? that experts on theropods can't tell an allosaur from a tyrannosaur?

just kidding around, but seriously, the two taxa are the same thing.

File: dino_duels__sinotyrannus_vs_yutyrannus_by_teratophoneus-d4y2a89.jpg (291KB, 900x654px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 900x654px

>>2112649
To be honest, we never really knew what the arms belonged to. There are even some that believe it was to a spinosaur. Allosauroid was simply the safest answer for a long time; spread very far around the globe for a very long time.

More recently, we have discovered some primitive tyrannosaurus were developing larger arms but smaller and/or much lighter skulls like sinotyrannus.

However, more recent discoveries show that it was almost certainly a kind of primitive tyrannosaur. The juvenile skull was pretty much the milestone that forced us to logically change how we think of megaraptor as was the case for>>2111198 which was originally considered a predatory animal.

Paleontology is a constantly changing science, especially when talking about animals with only some bones.

File: Sharovipteryx_BW.jpg (21KB, 800x437px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 800x437px

>>2110973
It's just so weird
https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/the-aerodynamics-of-sharovipteryx-the-hind-wing-glider/

By the way, it is not a dinosaur.

File: fasolasuchus-size.jpg (76KB, 614x219px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 614x219px

>>2111572
Here is a big land croc monster

>>2112658
More modern tyrannosaurus instead focused more on much thicker robust skulls capable of kill much quicker than other dinosaurs.

Tyrannosaurus itself was the prime example. One bite from it, and just about any sinosaur would shortly after due to the tremendous damage.

File: entelodonts.jpg (155KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 2000x1000px

>>2110973
Otherwise known as terminator-pig.

If you think boars are badass, imagine one taller than a man, also had a massive mouth with powerful jaws and a taste specifically for flesh

>>2111217
im sure they could have been much larger

>>2111221
primitive eyes

>>2112663
Are those feathers or fleshy extensions or spines (like a fine split into many parts).

File: gigantopithecus-size.jpg (156KB, 618x412px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 618x412px

>>2111211
https://tsjok45.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/primaten-evolutie/

File: american_lion.png (285KB, 1024x479px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1024x479px

>>2110973

>>2112658
>Allosauroid was simply the safest answer for a long time
the diagnostic cranial traits of tyrannosauroids are also found in derived allosauroids.

when I say they're the same thing I mean it quite literally - derived tyrannosauroids are measurable the exact same thing as allosauroids.

E.g., tyrannosauroids are cranially diagnosed by angle of the naris, fused and vaulted nasals, expansion of the antorbital fossae, pneumaticization of the anterior maxillae and jugals, and angle of the occipital. Also of course D-shaped basal cross-section of the premaxillary teeth and fore-aft heterodonty.

all of these traits are also found in derived allosauroids.

the two are literally the same thing.

File: BqrR2IEIAAEgeUn.jpg (47KB, 598x406px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 598x406px

>>2112795
That is simply not true. Sure there are some minuet similarities between allosauroid and tyrannosairoid skull traits, they are more than different to distinguish.

Based on the skull (the only skull of megaraptor), it is almost exactly like dilong.
https://twitter.com/TomHoltzPaleo/status/480427038575460352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


Really, there appear to be zero resemblance to allosauroid in any way.

>>2112795
>the two are literally the same thing.

what they're ACTUALLY diagnosed by is overall skull shape-
skull width, skull height, jaw depth.

of course we can't admit that because we KNOW that these traits are prone to regular convergence and thus aren't actually diagnostic.

can we have an allosauroid with a low, wide skull?
of course. Skull shape isn't diagnostic.

can we have a tyrannosauroid with a narrow, tall skull?
sure, we have several.

again, skull shape isn't diagnostic.

and if neither overall skull shape is diagnostic nor is fine detail of the skull, we have to admit that nothing about the skull is diagnostic.

we have no real way of telling a tyrannosauroid from an allosauroid except the mood of the person describing them.

>>2112798
>it is almost exactly like dilong
kek

you're assuming Dilong is correctly assigned.

the only thing unique about the skull is gross morphology.

there's nothing in the details that isn't also commonly found in allosauroids.

Not to be a dick, but Holtz has invested his entire career in his diagnosis of Tyrannosauroidea. He absolutely hates me. And several other paleontologists who point out his failures.

>>2112798
>there appear to be zero resemblance to allosauroid in any way.
I agree, if we're looking at the overall shape of the skull.

however even Holtz will likely admit that the overall shape of the skull is meaningless due to convergence.

>>2112781
>longisquama.jpg
I'm going out on a limb and guess they are long squames.

File: Megaraptor_bust.png (1MB, 1280x906px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x906px

>>2112799
Truth is in paleontology, we for the most part do not actually know just what it is we are looking at when looking at a few bones. So we use scientific methods, rationality, evidence and references.

Based on the evidence, megaraptor is most likely a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid based on the skull. Though it would appear the third finder was in the process of fading away, so maybe it was not too shocking.

>>2112806
>we for the most part do not actually know just what it is we are looking at when looking at a few bones.
I've spent decades learning

I know my christa tuberalis from my basioccipital tuber.

it doesn't matter though. Paleontology attracts a lot of mediocre minds.

>>2112805
It is actually a lot more meaningful than you give credit to, especially considering it is one of the only bones to the entire existence of the animal in question.

As of now, there is nor never truly was evidence it was an allosauroid. Yet there is to suggest it was a primitive derivative of tyrannosaroid.

>>2112808
>there is nor never truly was evidence it was an allosauroid.
meh.

the same traits that make it a tyrannosauroid make it an allosauroid.

>>2112807
You left out the rest of the context, which was the point in which you claim to use similar methods...

>>2112810
Barely, if at all... I would honestly be more convinced that it was something totally different.

>>2112811
I absolutely don't know the answer.

I'm just saying the current answer isn't real.

>>2112813
it might be.

but I'm not talking about it in particular.

the same problem exists with Dilong, or Concavenator, or Yutyrannus, or most any of the two clades.

>>2112815
It's the most real based on the evidence. Which makes it the most likely.

This is part of how we do the science

>>2112817
>It's the most real based on the evidence.
somehow I doubt you've looked at the character tables.
>This is part of how we do the science
of the two of us, I'm the only one that has ever done this type of science.

>>2112816
Yutyrannus was almost certainly a derivative tyrannosauroid. Megaraptor seem to be even more distant to tyrannosaurus than yutyrannus, but still a derivative of tyrannosauroid.


Until evidence show otherwise, megaraptor was most likely a derivative of primitive tyrannosauroid; how we do the science, rather than just asserting whatever we want or staying in the dark.

>>2112820
Look, you are free to even believe it is more related to crocodiles.

However, fact of the matter is there are definite similarities between megaraptor and primitive tyrannosaurs. This much we actually know.

This is how we identify 'a pile of dusty old bones' with a group ad so on to better understand the specimen(s).

>>2112825
>; how we do the science, rather than just asserting whatever we want or staying in the dark.
and that's the part where there's a problem.

we say that tyrannosauroids had certain cranial features that distinguish them from other groups.

then we say that allosauroids have exactly the same cranial features.

finally we pretend that having those features that are found in both groups somehow identifies the animals as belonging to one or the other.

it's a farce, and if you don't believe me I'm sure we can drag out Naish or some other paleontologists views on the subject. Several agree with me.

>>2112827
>there are definite similarities between megaraptor and primitive tyrannosaurs
absolutely.

all of those similarities are also found in allosaurs.

if you don't believe me, name a few and I'll show you which allosaurs they're found in....

>>2112828
Again, have you even looked at the actual skull >>2112798

There is virtually nothing about it that is like an allosauroid in any apparent way. Yet it almost perfectly matches as a relative of dilong. which was a primitive tyrannosauroid...


Just what 'similar traits' are you even referring to?


By the way, based on your logic, there is almost no way to at least distinguish certain dinosaurs enough apart, which is absurd.

>>2112829
Barely, if at all in this context

Everything I said >>2112832 applies to your reply.

>>2112832
>There is virtually nothing about it that is like an allosauroid in any apparent way.
that is gross morphology.
and as I mentioned, gross morphology isn't diagnostic due to convergence. Is a whale a fish? gross morphology says yes.

>Just what 'similar traits' are you even referring to
I've already listed them.
fused and vaulted nasals, abrupt premaxillae, fenestrated maxillae and jugals, expanded antorbital fossae, D-shaped basal cross section of the premaxillary teeth, and caudo-crainial heterodonty.

the characters that are used to define tyrranosauroids and happen to also be found in allosauroids.

>there is almost no way to at least distinguish certain dinosaurs enough apart, which is absurd.
hey, you finally understood what I'm saying.

there is no way, and that IS absurd.

>>2112633
So tyrannosaurs either had the most lethal jaws, or the most lethal arms of all meat eating dinosaurs. It is amazing how diverse these animals could have been.

>>2112835
It is as if you are really trying to 'split-hair' or 'reach' very far to highly unlikely conclusions to not see it as a primitive tyrannosaur derivative; at this point, it is blatant mental gymnastics.

Sure, MAYBE it is not a tyrannosaur. But as of now, the facts and evidence is most certainly pointing towards primitive tyrannosauroid; more so than allosauroid in any meaningful way.
_____


The traits you mention are for the most part very generic in general and do not disprove it to be most likely a tyrannosauroid.

______


This is actually part of the reason why the field of paleontology exist in the first place. To best understand extinct organisms in the most logical way possible. This I had always alluded to. However, nothing you saying (not even this) take away from the reality that -based on what we know as of now- it was most likely a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid.

By you logic, we should just ignore it all and 'stay in the dark' rather than coming to the most logical conclusion based on the evidence thus far as expected with a rational scientific line of thought.

>>2111161
>comparada con la Humanoide Shizuka Ad Astra
m8...

File: spinosaurus_aegypticus__2__by_xstreamchaosofficial-da0z0tq.jpg (67KB, 1202x664px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1202x664px

>>2111929
Agreed. Unfortunately, people want monsters more than the actual animals.

>>2112841
>The traits you mention are for the most part very generic in general and do not disprove it to be most likely a tyrannosauroid.
yes.
We agree on that.

however these are the exact traits used to define (diagnose) tyrannosauroids.

they are too generic. that is my complaint.
>This is actually part of the reason why the field of paleontology exist in the first place.
yes.
I am a paleontologist and I'm telling you this current view won't last.

I don't know what the future will bring, but I can tell you the current view won't last. Because it's absurd.

>By you logic, we should just ignore it all and 'stay in the dark'
not at all. By my view you should keep looking for a better way because the current way sucks.

>>2111929
>Spinosaurus nowadays is not only unique (actual, very distinct qualities) buts it is more awe-inspiring due to showing how different and mysterious a dinosaurs can really be.
actually all that stuff about Spinosaurus was debunked last fall.

it's not true according to the most current view.

>>2112848
It depends on context. In this case>>2112798
It's hard to come to any other conclusion...

Again, MAYBE it was totally different. But as of now, the facts and evidence points towards it being a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid. In this case, we can only assume (like with all extinct dinosaurs) what it was based on the facts and evidence thus far and come to the most logical conclusions we can.
_____

Maybe, or maybe not. Maybe it will turn out to be more related to something else, or perhaps there will be even more evidence to point towards tyrannosauroid.

Either way, it still seem to be much more solid than megaraptor being an allosauroid.

_____

It is pretty much the best way. After all, we are dealing with the remains of extinct animals from millions of years ago...

>>2112853
Nope. There have been many ideas and some disagreements as expected. But little if anything was truly debunked about spinosaurus recently.

>>2112856
as I said, the traits that are used to place it in the Tyrannosauroidea would also put it in Allosauroidea.

don't get the wrong impression- I don't necessarily think it's an allosauroid.

I'm just saying the current diagnosis isn't diagnostic. It doesn't work because all the traits of one clade are found in the other.

>>2112859
Again, barely at best... Especially when comparing the skull to dilong.

>>2112858
if we take the most recent science as definitive then all of that was debunked.

in time it may change directions again.

Ibrahim et al.'s Spinosaurus was debunked as a chimera:
https://peerj.com/articles/1323/

>>2111637
Are they bigger than blue wales?

>>2112861
no insult intended here, but the traits you're comparing aren't the traits paleontologists look at.

>>2112863
Of course not.

>>2112863
>land mammal

>>2112862
That merely suggest that the new evidence might be another species but very related. There is little evidence to support that claim and even if true, it would be so similar to spinosaurus (an animal that otherwise just an upper snout and exploded sail parts) would best be referenced to it than any other spinosaur. Either way, spinosaurus most likely had a rectangular sail and all.

But this is considering the hypothetical chance of recent finds being a serrate species, which does not seem very likely.

File: blue_whale_size_comparison_2_by_sameerprehistorica-d5zk3fx.jpg (164KB, 1045x764px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1045x764px

>>2112863
This should answer your question

>>2112871
>That merely suggest that the new evidence might be another species but very related
no, it suggests it's 3 different species, which is a problem.
>There is little evidence to support that claim
enough evidence to completely destroy the quadrupedal spinosaurus view.
>does not seem very likely.
if you're going to take science on authority then you'll have to get comfortable with the idea that things you like are no more likely than things you don't.

File: Suchomimus_skeleton.jpg (2MB, 2712x2305px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2712x2305px

>>2112872
That spinosaurus leg ratio was based on baryonyx, when it should have been based on suchomimus. Suchomimus had a much shorter leg ratio than baryonyx

By the way, suchomimus should also be featured more on film. Perhaps Jurassic World 2?

>>2112872
Were Argentinosaurus bigger than blue whales? sorry I am a newfag to /an/

File: Suchomimus_tenerensis.jpg (94KB, 775x258px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 775x258px

>>2112876
>Suchomimus had a much shorter leg ratio than baryonyx
meh
it's pretty average.

File: 143fbbd343bc4aea42e5c10cb5cb71aa.jpg (157KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 736x552px

>>2112876
Baryonyx was clearly more terrestrial than suchomimus. But suchomimus was much more related to spinosaurus than baryonyx.

>>2112880
they're almost exactly the same.

several paleontologists have suggested that Suchomimus is a species of Baryonyx.

and of course we don't actually have the legs of Baryonyx so comparison is... difficult.

File: sucho-baryonyx.jpg (65KB, 796x406px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 796x406px

>>2112879
>>2112882
Baryonyx legs were found, but damaged. Meaning it had a longer leg ratio or its legs are actually artificially lengthened.


Such sketched show what was found, but are not necessarily 100% accurate. Here are the actual casts of the actual bones found
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/photos/expedition2/untitled7.jpg

https://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/suchomimumthreequarter052212.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7344/9067912670_128b9f100f_z.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Jobaria_and_Suchomimus.jpg
They are noticeably different, unless baryonyx had a textbook metaphoric Ilizarov apparatus that I am not too sure about.

>>2112876
Yes but the size was based on the exaggerated upper estimate of 59ft. It was more accurately 50ft in length.

>>2112893
well, you'll notice that about 1/3 of the femur is missing and about 1/2 of the fibula/tibia.

either way, the leg ratio for both is far longer than that posited by Ibrahim for Spinosaurus, and as I said several experts on the subject consider Suchomimus and Baryonyx to be the same animal.

bonus points for making me google Ilizarov apparatus though. 10/10. I saw that in Gattaca.

>>2112893
>Here are the actual casts of the actual bones found
let's not lie, we both know that's not true.

>>2112896
Yeah, but either the longer leg ratio is correct, or it is if anything exaggerated and should be closer to suchomimus leg ratio. I personally think baryonyx was more terrestrial and suchomimus was closer to the evolutionary size of spinosaurus (but not a direct ancestor).
Suchomimus is from what is now Niger, Africa about 121–113mya. All while baryonyx existed in England about 130–125mya. They are totally different spinosauroids.

Your welcome.

>>2112899
For suchomimus femur and tibia, most certainly true.

For baryonyx, a bit more guesswork went into its incomplete damaged legs. But I personally believe baryonyx was more terrestrial than suchomimus which likely meant a longer leg ratio. That is unless they are artificially lengthened.

>>2112900
>Your welcome
kek.

I'm no expert on Spinosaurids, I'm just going off of the same drawings you're posting.

I can tell when you're bluffing though, because I know some of the stuff you're saying is open lies. I don't know the leg ratio though. I only know that other people that know more than me or you consider them the same genus.

they could be wrong.

>>2112901
>I personally believe baryonyx was more terrestrial than suchomimus which likely meant a longer leg ratio.
the manus would seem to say the opposite.

>>2112900
>Suchomimus is from what is now Niger, Africa about 121–113mya. All while baryonyx existed in England about 130–125mya.
of course those two places were connected at some point there.

and dinosaurs were incredibly conserved, some species lasted tens of millions of years without much change.

File: irritator 4.png (288KB, 1064x703px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1064x703px

>>2112901
ok, well I gotta take off for a couple days.

just wanted to say thanks for arguing with me. You certainly know your shit when it comes to spinosaurids.

it's been a pleasure. I'll look forward to next time.

>>2112661
>Guys listen...

>>2111221
Alien fish?

File: Tsintaosaurus-skeleton-990x658.jpg (170KB, 990x658px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 990x658px

The dinosaurian unicorn.

File: therizinosaurus_cheloniformis_by_unlobogris.jpg (150KB, 1063x744px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1063x744px

>>2113322
Naked

File: therizinosaurus_by_nemo_ramjet-d3eakys.png (518KB, 1600x1512px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1600x1512px

>>2113322
I do not think the head would be naked like .

File: Therizinosaurus_known_material.jpg (9KB, 278x221px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 278x221px

what a bunch of unscientific bullshit.
>yeah, I found an arm and later I found some bits of a leg. It's an, uh, therapod. with a tiny head and yaoi hands. yeah

>>2111228
>The large tyrannosaur that defiantly had a coat of feathers.
as drawn by someone who is a bigot against the Chinese.

>>2113332
I did not even notice that subtle racism until now.

I just assumed it was squinting because the bird was so close to its eye. But that with the long beard and thinking about the aesthetics more...

Mindblown.

File: Dunkleosteus_12-588x221.jpg (20KB, 588x221px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 588x221px

>>2113210
Dunkleosteus was a prehistoric monster fish from 380-360mya. It long preceded dinosaurs and synapsids.

File: Dunkleosteus_15-588x490.jpg (48KB, 588x490px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 588x490px

>>2113387
By the way, it did not actually have teeth. It was more like a beak.

File: pliosaurus-size.jpg (128KB, 614x313px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 614x313px

>>2110973
What about this reptilian sea monster

File: 3a252a8187b87a5214f6736f46868299.jpg (28KB, 488x230px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 488x230px

>>2110973
Sarcosuchus is the only actual giant crocodilian that does not look too similar to the average SciFi monster crocs, due to its more distinct head shape.

File: therizinosaurus_by_novablue-d4t197l.jpg (125KB, 887x613px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 887x613px

>>2111166
>>2113322
>>2113324
>>2113327
>>2113332
My brethren.

File: baby_therizinosaur_by_novablue-d4td14k.jpg (73KB, 664x547px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 664x547px

>>2113421

File: 8214afab38ec9a70e3aabf19daf202fe.jpg (10KB, 236x171px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x171px

>>2113387

>be one of the biggest baddest fishes ever to exist
>scientist names you dunkleosteus

>>2112872

According to Wikipedia, a 787 is 196 feet long so this picture is bullshit.

File: poposaurus-sil.jpg (96KB, 614x319px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 614x319px

>>2111572
Poposaurus was literally classic dinosaurs. A big bipedal scaly crocodile

File: Unknown.jpg (11KB, 263x192px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 263x192px

Sea Scorpions

File: Therizinosaur_skeletons.jpg (146KB, 776x525px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 776x525px

>>2113332
>conveniently forgetting about the rest of the family
I'm getting tired of you conspiracy theorists on an

>>2111219

my nigga

>>2113605
>only one with a head
>other than that it's just feet
nah, fuck off.

>>2111170
>>2111174
>that stupid fuckface
why do artists always draw mammals like this? it doesn't look anything like how the used to look

>>2113630
>ignoring all the ones that are almost complete including hands and jaw
What a faggot holy shit

>>2113893
>>2111174
Chalicotheres were not ground sloths senpai.

File: opYq7Cu.jpg (47KB, 648x442px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 648x442px

>>2111178
huuuuuuuuuu

>>2111221
this was in ice age the melt down

>>2112996
Kek
do you know the whole thing? It is funny as fuck

>>2113324
Why scalefags can't accept the truth? Theropods had feathers, most of them. End of story

>>2111636
sounds like the Brak Show

File: Gorgonopsid.jpg (760KB, 2500x2000px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 2500x2000px

>>2111296
>>2111558
My niggas

>>2113984
first picture i ever saved

File: uwotm8.jpg (21KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x225px

>>2112346
Fucking this, no other documentary even comes close. I'm absolutely dying for a modern, up to date remake of WWD, Beasts, and Monsters (and this time do it right.) It would be so fucking amazing

>>2113893
You happen to know exactly how these prehistoric animals looked with their flesh intact? Amazing! Tell us more.

File: Tsintaosaurus_spinorhinus[1].png (500KB, 2049x2323px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 2049x2323px

>>2113299
not anymore
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082268

File: images (3).jpg (7KB, 192x147px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 192x147px

Tazmanian Tiger

>>2111235
Am I the only one that thinks this looks cool as shit?

>>2113989
>most of them
99% of theropods have feathers if you count birds.
~8% did if you don't count birds.

>>2114648
I think it looks pretty cool.

I also think it's funny that it was debunked so quickly and quietly the public still hasn't noticed.

>>2114655
The only I saw debunking it was a paper stating that they made the legs and hips a bit too small but they were still much smaller than the original. That came out like a week after.

>>2114666
the quadrupedal spino was split up and reassigned to three different species here:

https://peerj.com/articles/1323/

like I said, it was quick and quiet.

File: crocskulls.jpg (85KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x500px

>>2113396
you want giant crocs take your pick

File: when_bugs_ate_dinosaurs_by_pterosaur_freak-d7z7jzt.jpg (148KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1024x692px

>>2110973
Titanopterans mang...

>>2111217
>implying it isn't just one of the chinese fossil fabrications

File: Parahelicoprion.jpg (143KB, 1920x831px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1920x831px

>>2111862
very pleb megalodon is all over the place now if you want 40 foot "sharks"...

>>2114677
Problem being that that Hollywood pretty much beat the idea of giant monster croc montage too much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuHgEGDUcDc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU8NUVRmSHA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QioaLIZx6Rw
The other too giant skulls look almost exactly like the average SciFi monster crocs. As a result, it kind of ruins their cinematic mystic, interest or fascination as with
>>2111862
>>2111931

But I guess they would be cool to see in a Skull Island film.

File: y-u-no-david-peters-by-themac-July-2012-tiny.jpg (11KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 350x263px

>>2111572
>>2112661

>pterosaurheresies

Do not use that site its ran by an idiot with no formal degree who thinks photographing fossils lets him see things professional's can't see when studying the real thing. At best hes an autist misunderstanding his sperg interest, at worst he's a fucking pseudo-scientist.

>>2112346
>>2112329
>>2112317
>>2112227
Here's something that might interest you. The WWD () Blu-ray has something called "Cretaceous Cut". It's pretty much the same movie but with the dialogue cut out. I'm seriously considering bying the thing only for that.

File: LaFamilia_West_CerroBallena-630x350.jpg (105KB, 630x350px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 630x350px

>>2115188
You do know that paleontology is mostly hypothesis and theories.usually based on animals that barely even have evidence of their existence?

Part of the reason why this field exist was so that we can best understand the dusty old bones. After all, they are mostly extinct and all traces of DNA is either gone or likely damaged depending n how long the animal has been dead.

By the way, what exactly are you even complaining about in those citations?

>>2115200
Due to the dinosaurs being so anthropomorphic, it would likely just be like a long episode of 'Dinosaur Revolution'.

>>2113953
Bullshit

>>2115442
>what exactly are you even complaining about in those citations?
he's saying you cited the blog ramblings of a madman with no education or experience in paleontology.

you might as well cite Barney the Dinosaur shows or Land Before Time.

>>2111221
They said it had been hauled from the challenger deep, but I'm sure that beast never swam in terrestrial waters until a week ago.

>>2113424
Megaloicthys was too obvious and the scientist who named it was a basketball fan so viola!

File: Ichthyosaur.jpg (115KB, 772x508px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 772x508px

>>2110973

File: 1459730872510.jpg (36KB, 452x347px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 452x347px

>>2111227

>>2115647
That's adorable, but I don't understand how that relate to the post.

File: article-1229250-074774C1000005DC-947_634x388.jpg (60KB, 634x388px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 634x388px

>>2110973
Kaprosuchus was a more terrestrial crocodile. One with relatively long legs that likely galloped like a modern croc, but at much greater efficiency due to the leg difference. It's not a giant (about 11ft) or quite a monster, but it is a decent sized croc with much better land speed.

Note that it was not related to the completely terrestrial crocodilian-like archosaurs related to dinosaurs like postosuchus. >>2111572

File: kaprosuchus-size.jpg (115KB, 496x319px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 496x319px

>>2115695
It's in comparison to those kinds of archosaur, it was just a croc with longer legs

File: andrewsarchus.jpg (99KB, 650x426px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 650x426px

>>2110973
Andrewsarchus was possibly the largest mammalian land predator of all time. But its true origins is a bit of a mystery.

Some say it was more closely related to pigs or even sheep.


Other more recent studies claim it was essentially more related to hippos and whales. The same was said for >>2112686

In fact, both andrewsarchus and entelodont may just essentially be giant terrestrial versions of pakicetus (ancestor to modern whales)

File: Dimorphodon3.jpg (61KB, 706x495px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 706x495px

For such an awesome looking primitive pterosaur, it is almost never used outside Jurassic World.

File: Kaprosuchus_2.jpg (70KB, 982x600px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 982x600px

>>2115695
>>2115698
You can even see the difference in the skulls. Kaprosuchus skull looks like a wicked croc or gator with tusklike enlarged fangs.

Postosuchus kill looks more like a dinosaur than either a croc or >>2111572
because it is a distant relative of dinosaurs.

>>2115722
>because it is a distant relative of dinosaurs
um, so are crocodiles.

>>2115724
Crocodilian are much more distant in comparison, which was my point. Crocs as we see them today took a very different evolutionary path than the other groups of archosaur that would actually lead to dinosaurs like>>2111567

>>2115754
>Crocodilian are much more distant in comparison, which was my point
no they aren't.
they're actually closer.
>Crocs as we see them today took a very different evolutionary path than the other groups of archosaur that would actually lead to dinosaurs like>>2111567
Euparkeria is the ancestor of both dinosaurs and crocodiles, it's equally related to both.

>>2115758
Euparkeria isn't the ancestor to dinosaurs and crocodiles, it lies close to the origin but it isnt.

if your looking for a better representation of what the ancestor for both crocs and dinosaurs may have been like try Aenigmastropheus or Protorosaurus

>>2116020
>it lies close to the origin but it isnt.
yes, I'm aware.

the odds of ever finding an actual ancestor to anything are nil.

the anon claimed it was an ancestor to dinosaurs, and by that reasoning it's equally an ancestor of crocodiles.

>>2116020
>if your looking for a better representation of what the ancestor for both crocs and dinosaurs may have been like try Aenigmastropheus or Protorosaurus
this is a strangely naïve statement.

you understand that if an animal is a common ancestor of two clades, then ALL OF ITS ANCESTORS are also common ancestors of those same two clades?

i.e., if Protorosaurus were a common ancestor of crocs and dinosaurs, then ALL OF THE ANCESTORS or Protorosaurus are also?

>>2112484
Was Andrewsarchus not something like a predatorsheep?

>>2116088
what's a predatorsheep?

>>2111221
>>2113210
Nah, it's pretty much a living scissor. It's also waaaay bigger than you probably think it is.

>>2111628
Why is there a weird bulge where his penis is suppose to be?

>>2112877
yes, biggest known animal to have ever lived.

>>2116123
Sheath

>>2116129
?

>>2116143
he's fucking with you

we don't know if dinosaurs had penises, but if they did they were several feet behind that bump.

the bump is one of the hip bones, the pubis.

File: argentinosaurus.jpg (114KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1920x1080px

Length
Argentinosaurus: Most likely 98-115ft in length.
Blue-whale: 98ft with only two being 109-110.

Winner: Dinosaur, if not both about the same length.
_______

Weight
Argentinosaurus: most likely 80-100 tonnes.
Blue-whale: Typical weight of 73-136 tonnes, but many weigh 173tonnes.

Winner: Mammal won by a high margin.

>>2111299
More like "take the worst things for a medieval dude, combine them and use imagination".
Fire, wild animals, greed.
Slavs had a three-headed dragon in their tales as a metaphor for Mongol Invasion.

>>2116401
>>2116401
That, and sauropods aren't even the longest animals either.

>>2111254
There's an ice type Pokemon based off of it

>>2111254
What if the tail was also spiny?

>>2111221
looks like one of those fish mobs from FFX

File: pakicetus.jpg (83KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 750x750px

>>2116088
Apparently not. Just read>>2115707

It was most likely related to pakicetus

>>2115637
>>2115626
ayy lmao

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X15002026

>Megaraptorids evolved in Australia
>most basal megaraptoran found yet

so what are yout bet on what they really are?

Allosaur like Tyrannosaurs?
Tyrannosaur like Allosaurs?
or a separate carnosaur/coelurosaur group?

>>2112792

Hot.

>>2117060
Very unlikely to be its own group and there is more evidence pointing towards tyrannosauroid than allosaur.

this does not mean closely related to tyrannosaurus itself.

Think of tyrannosaurus as a great aps(gorilla). While megaraptor was like a derivative of primitive lesser primates (old world monkeys for example) like the mandrill. Both are primates, but not necessarily very related

File: umschau_iguanodon.jpg (279KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1000x563px

>>2117291
It was simply previous labeled as an allosauroid because we simply did not have enough evidence to truly label it as something and allocate was the safest answer at the time.

This is not the first time such has happened. There have been even more extreme cases.
However, we must be willing to change our ideas when evidence comes our way. We must asses the situation based on all evidence, including current. This is how we get a more intellectually honest view for the very most accurate understanding for such creatures as we possibly can.

>>2116944
So basically, think less killer sheep or even pig, and more carnivorous land hippo.

>>2117315
we had exactly the same information when it was classified as an allosauroid as we do now.

different people think different things is all.

Novas et al. had to reassign ALL of the theropods of Australia to the tyrannosauroidea to make their hypothesis work, but we know this isn't true since at least one of them was so close to Allosaurus we thought it WAS Allosaurus for many years.

File: old_therizinosaurus_giant_turtle.jpg (100KB, 500x344px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x344px

>>2117342
I do not recall the skull ever being found prior, which is why it was usually depicted with an allosaur or mapusaurus type skull. Plus, we have many more tyrannosaurs discovered. Misidentification is not uncommon in paleontology, especially prior newer evidence and research.


People think many things. Some even believe it was a spinosaur. It might even be a giant raptor after all. But fact of the matter id that the evidence is most concise with it being a primitive derivative of tyrannosaur. Therefore based on the evidence, it was most likely a tyrannosaur.

>>2117347
you'll find most fossils are found and known years before they're formally described.

But both Novas and other previous palentologists are working from the idea that ALL of the theropods on the island were of one sort. So previously all of the theropods were thought to be allosauroids, and now all of them are thought to be tyrannosauroids.

which should tell you that nothing about Megaraptor itself is particularly tyrannosauroid or allosauroid. They're making the diagnosis primarily off of other dinosaurs.

not that it matters since Tyrannosauroidea is currently the wastebasked taxon we throw things in if we don't know where they belong.

in another 50 years it will look completely different. It may not even exist by then. The same is possible with Allosauroidea....

File: old_spinosaurus_origional.png (599KB, 600x485px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 600x485px

>>2117348
>But both Novas and other previous palentologists are working from the idea that ALL of the theropods on the island were of one sort.
False. It is just that some theropods are showing signs of perhaps not being what we initially thought they were. Like megaraptor.


>So previously all of the theropods were thought to be allosauroids, and now all of them are thought to be tyrannosauroids.
Grossly inaccurate. Only a very selective few are considered related to tyrannosaurs. It is just that more specimens, evidence in general, data and information tend to challenge old views, especially -in the case of megaraptor being an allosauroid- when some animals were only labeled as something with little evidence as a safe answer.


>not that it matters since Tyrannosauroidea is currently the wastebasked taxon we throw things in if we don't know where they belong.
Oh the irony. That is pretty much the allosaur or carnosaur staple. They practically referred to as the 'safest bet' for labeling large theropods, because they were some of the longest living and wide spread of them all.

This is why spinosaurus was and even tyrannosaurus itself were considered at least related to carnosaurs, making them distant relatives of allosaurs. This is more ironic for tyrannosaurus, because it was actually going to be labeled as a 'super carnosaur'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqkqkxYGNZc

However, as more recent specimens, relatives, evidence in general, studies and data progress in the evermore changing field of paleontology, old views become evermore challenged. In order to have the most accurate view of any of these animals, we must be willing to logically asses the information and accept the most logical point of view we can possibly have. Like I had mentioned before, the evidence is most concise with megaraptor being a primitive derivative of tyrannosaur. Therefore based on the evidence, megaraptor was most likely a tyrannosaur.

>>2117411
>False. It is just that some theropods are showing signs of perhaps not being what we initially thought they were. Like megaraptor.
dude, every single theropod on Australia was reassigned by Novas from Allosauroidea to Tyrannosauroidea.

I'm not sure why you think you're teaching here, it's clear you know nothing about it.

but if you think I'm wrong, name a single one that wasn't reassigned?

>>2117411
and the reason I challenge you to name one isn't just to prove you wrong,

I want you to fucking read something instead of bullshitting on /an/ all day.

go. read something.

File: HERMANN_Pterodactylus_antiquus.jpg (108KB, 719x480px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 719x480px

>>2117417
I'm not too sure at the extent in which some Australian theropods are labeled as some sort of primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid. But if megaraptor was, perhaps it was possible for other primitive populations of tyrannosaurs to spread in that part of the world. After all, megaraptor was a pretty big derivative of tyrannosaur, meaning either there were no competition for them or they found a niche in which they could exist with other large families of predatory dinosaurs; like spinosaurs primarily eating fish, while carnosaurs were primarily terrestrial predators.

either way, it might not be as ludicrous as you make it out to be.
______

>I'm not sure why you think you're teaching here, it's clear you know nothing about it.
On the contrary, no one truly know much about it, aside from the very few remains we have. Even from the very beginning I implied that it might not be a tyrannosaur. It might be something else or entirely different.

But -again- facts of the matter is that evidence if more concise with megaraptor being a derivative of primitive tyrannosauroid. Therefore, it was most likely a tyrannosauroid. It really isn't much clearer than this...


Sure in ~50 years or less, it 'might' be labeled as something else based on future evidence; which largely seem very unlikely at this point. But as of now, the evidence points towards tyrannosauroid... Therefore...
Agreeing with me is just a matter of your own personal choice, which is irrelevant in the wide scope and affected nothing I had addressed. ______

Image based on outdated depictions of pterosaurs as being gliding opossum-like animals before more specimens, relatives, evidence in general, studies and more recent research followed...
http://pterosaur.net/popular_culture.php

>>2117443
>I'm not too sure at the extent in which some Australian theropods are labeled as some sort of primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid.
I have already told you.

to a complete extent.

they were ALL classified as allosauroids and Novas changed them ALL to tyrannosauroids.

It's all in the paper where he reassigned Megaraptor, a subject you pretend to be an expert on but still obviously haven't actually read.

File: 061226_kangaroo_vmed_1p_grid-4x2.jpg (19KB, 308x402px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 308x402px

>>2117447
>they were ALL classified as allosauroids and Novas changed them ALL to tyrannosauroids.
(Citation Needed)

Sound more like an exaggeration on your part. But as I addressed, if what you said about some suppose actual claims are true (which are benounced to me), it might not be quite as ludicrous as you make it out to be. Though I am not sure how many Australian theropods are truly tyrannosauroids in some way, maybe some or possibly even most of those large theropods were derivatives of primitive tyrannosauroids (assuming what you said about their conclusions for all of the dinosaurs in that regent were correct); I would like a reference.

Buts perhaps in a similar way to how the macropodidae (kangaroo type animals) currently dominated Australia for quite a long time and even diversified, perhaps the land was suited enough for such a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid to survive and thrive; possible lack of any other competition.
Or maybe there were other family groups of predatory dinosaurs, but the tyrannosauroids found their own niche(s) to exploit.

Again, I'm not sure for those supposed Australian theropods (I would like a citation for such a claim of "all" of them being classified as some sort of tyrannosauroid),


Regardless, megaraptor itself was still most likely a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid as I explained ad-nauseam at this point.

>>2111558
I have just had the best fun reading about the different epochs of earth

>>2117489
>(Citation Needed)
I have already given you a citation.

it's the same paper by Novas where he reassigns Megaraptor.

can't you read?
fucking imbecile.

>>2117489
>as I explained ad-nauseam at this point
you haven't named a single tyrannosauroid trait that Megaraptor has.

this isn't surprising because you haven't read the paper reassigning Megaraptor.

the funny part is you think you've explained it to me when I've actually read the thing and you haven't.

silly child.

File: basilosaurus_outdated_seaserpantlizard.png (586KB, 716x495px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 716x495px

>>2117633
That was not really a citation, but you claimed
>every single theropod on Australia was reassigned by Novas from Allosauroidea to Tyrannosauroidea.>>2117417

Which is why I said
>I'm not too sure at the extent in which some Australian theropods are labeled as some sort of primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid.>>2117443
>Sound more like an exaggeration on your part>>2117489

I assume you were referring to the few megalosaurs found in Australia, like australovenator
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Australovenator_wintonensis.png
Not necessarily all of them. Though if megaraptor was most likely a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid...
__________

>>2117647
Read these
>>2112633
>>2112798
http://www.ameghiniana.org.ar/index.php/ameghiniana/article/view/868/1618
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667114000755
That's more of a legit backing than anything you have presented; which was not all that hard to find, honestly.
At best, you are just saying exactly what we know. Which is that it 'might' (key word: "might") not be a tyrannosauroid. However, -again- the evidence seem much more concise with it being a primitive derivative tyrannosauroid. Meaning megaraptor was 'most likely' (key words: "most likely") a derivative of primitive tyrannosauroids.

This is not to say it is absolutely 100% a tyrannosauroid. It might not be; as I had implied from the very beginning. But as far as the evidence go and as I explained in the end of two of my replies ...
>>2117411
>>2117443
This is just how we do the science in the field of paleontology to best understand the organisms in the most logical way we can.
At this point, everything you are saying is not only keeping us in a circle, but it is largely pointless and does nothing to actually affect what I had addressed. But do go on and play 'mental-gymnastics' while referring to other people as childish...

>>2117697
1. it should literally take you less than 10 seconds to find Novas 2014, you talk like you've already read it though for some reason you're avoiding reading it like it was the plague or something.

2. you continue to just discuss what other people think without saying anything about what's real. Do you even know what makes a tyrannosauroid different from an allosauroid?

No? then we have nothing to discuss except how much you trust one author or another and frankly that's stupid.

I do enjoy your condescending tone though. I have the degree in paleontology and you pretend you're teaching me.

File: megaraptor_namunhuaiquii_by_c_compiler-d8vz6v1.jpg (74KB, 1157x691px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1157x691px

>>2117701
Well I certainly trust credited sources and experts more than an anon on 4chan... U_U

However, you have mot actually gave a legitimate example as to how I am wrong. All you just been saying is the same mantra of it might/possibly/maybe not be what we now think it most likely was; the same dead horse you have been beating for a very long time, to no real meaningful way. Yes we know; no one is disagreeing with this. It might even be a spinosaur or even a giant dromaeosaur all along.
However, as the evidence seem most concise with... Tyrannosauroid seem to be the most likely answer. If anything, labeling it an allosauroid was more of an outdated safe-answer as calling dinosaurs scaly reptilian lizards (which is also challenged in the quake of more modern evidence and research; more like birds than lizards). It best resembles dilong, which was a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid; not much else truly known about it, at this point.
Thus we have little options other than to take the most likely view of it being a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid.

Honestly, the situation could not be any more clear, and you still are not actually saying anything to affect what I addressed even to this point...
_____

Its becoming evermore evident that either your "degree" in paleontology is nonsense, or you are nowhere near the expert in the topic as you delude yourself to be...

>>2117715
>I certainly trust credited sources and experts more than an anon on 4chan
as well you should.
>you have mot actually gave a legitimate example as to how I am wrong
YOU aren't wrong.
Novas et al might be.
or they might not.

but since you don't know what they said we've got nothing to discuss.

read the paper and we'll talk about it. Don't read the paper and we'll still have nothing to talk about. Unless of course you happen to have the Tyrannosauroidea diagnosis memorized as I have, then let's talk.

so far you've given no indication you'd understand anything I say on the subject.

>Its becoming evermore evident that either your "degree" in paleontology is nonsense,
exactly what I'm saying.
to you any technical discussion is going to be nonsense because you don't know what makes a tyrannosauroid different from an allosauroid. I can give you a hint- there's no real difference.

File: 1457664341388 (1).jpg (32KB, 400x359px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x359px

Please shut up and post more extinct animals, friends. You both seem exceedingly grumpy and should learn something from that one roach guy.

>>2117718
Paleofag here.
I like the roach guy.
but give him 6 years on /an/ and he'll be about as grumpy as I am. Just because most of the people that read his bullshit don't actually understand it.

>>2117715
>It best resembles dilong
how does it resemble Dilong?

the enlargement of the antorbital fossa? The fused and vaulted nasals? The abrupt angle of the premaxillae and occipitals? The fenestration of the maxillae and jugals? The premaxilla-maxillary heterodonty?

all of those things are also found in Allosauroidea.

Dilong is as much a tyrannosauroid as Allosaurus is. Literally the only tyrannosauroid trait in Dilong is the feathers, and those aren't known from Megaraptor.

File: dragonstyle.jpg (243KB, 1600x1204px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1600x1204px

>>2117721
>how does it resemble Dilong?
not to be a dick but I already know the answer...

it resembles Dilong in having a long, low skull.

which is meaningless due to constant convergengence in skull shapes among theropods. Lots of theropods have long, low skulls, that doesn't make them all tyrannosauroids.

the fact is nobody itt gets that so I'm talking to myself again. I HOPE someone'll read the paper but we both know that's not going to happen.

>>2117722
There are perhaps hundreds of answers, but none seem more evident than its apparent association with dilong. It is the same method in which was used to help reconstruct the spinosaur, therizinosaur, and overiraptorid families. We base the finding of the bones on animals with apparent similar traits.

>>2117727
>its apparent association with dilong.
based on overall skull shape, amirite?

you aren't reading what I say or you aren't understanding it.

either one is fucking boring.

>>2117721
Um, buddy. Sid you somehow miss the references at >>2117697
It's quite a lot and much more reliable than it being an allosauroid in the Late Creations.

It's more believable to even assume spinosaur than allosaur.

>>2117728
Read the refs>>2117697
It resemblance is quite profound, actually

>>2117727
>We base the finding of the bones on animals with apparent similar traits.
by "we" I assume you mean me since you haven't mentioned a single bone trait they share while I have listed what, 9?

>>2117731
9 that we what? Traits that are not disproving the claims?

>>2117729
>>2117730
>The most relevant features that megaraptorans share with tyrannosauroids include several foramina on the premaxillary body, extremely long and straight prenarial process of the premaxilla, incisiviform premaxillary teeth with a D-shaped cross-section, and cranially expanded supratemporal fossae separated from each other by a sharp sagittal median crest on frontals, which was presumably extended caudally above the parietals (not preserved).

you'll notice I listed all of those traits and I didn't bother reading your citation.

not that you read it either since that's the study I mentioned that reassigned ALL Australian theropods to Tyrannosauroidea.

the similarities are there, but they're also all found in allosauroids.

>>2117733
>Traits that are not disproving the claims?
they don't disprove anything.

however the fact that all of those 9 traits are also found in allosaurs should tell you why that animal was initially placed in Allosauroidea.

that hasn't changed by the way, those same traits are still found in allosaurs.

File: Megaraptor-aspecto.jpg (125KB, 920x490px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 920x490px

>>2117737
>you'll notice I listed all of those traits and I didn't bother reading your citation
I'll get back on those traits, but at least you admitted to the obvious...

I have read my citations, and they are for the most part stating exactly what I had said.

In a nutshell, we do not know much about megaraptor; could be a multitude of things or perhaps even something totally different. However, it bares resemblance to dilong (as refs explain deeper >>2117697).However -as I said >>2117411 -as more recent specimens, relatives, evidence in general, studies and data progress in the evermore changing field of paleontology, old views become evermore challenged. In order to have the most accurate view of any of these animals, we must be willing to logically asses the information and accept the most logical point of view we can possibly have.The evidence is most concise with megaraptor being a primitive derivative of tyrannosaur. Therefore based on the evidence, it was most likely a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid(which in general seem to make more sense than an allosaur in the Late Cretaceous)

Again, no one is saying 100% certainty. But it is as if you think you are somehow putting me in a metaphoric checkmate because you keep stating what I had already implied from the start...Which still does not affect the conclusion of it 'most likely'(key words) being a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid
_____
>>2117739
>they don't disprove anything.
So can we agree that it really was 'most likely' a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid?
>however the fact that all of those 9 traits are also found in allosaurs should tell you why that animal was initially placed in Allosauroidea

The fact you also said such generic traits are also to tyrannosauroids make them largely aside the point; assuming if true, which I did not read on the exact measurements on those parts of the skull.
So if your argument is still we are not 100% sure, no one was ever disagreeing on with that

>>2117722
>Makes claim with an inaccurate JP3 raptor skull as example

>>2117754
I am saying there's no difference between the diagnoses for tyrannosauroids and allosauroids, and THAT'S the reason Megaraptor was first assigned to Allosauroidea and the reason it probably will be again.

>I'll get back on those traits
be my guest. I've dedicated over a decade to looking at exactly those traits and how they fuck up Tyrannosauroidea.

It would be a pleasure if you'd read up on them so I can teach you a couple things. American paleontologists already know the problem, as do some EU scientists like Naish.

but if you want to see Tyrannosauroidea ripped to shreds you need to talk individual traits, and they're just waiting to be trashed.

>>2117755
that wasn't an example.
>>2117754
>So can we agree that it really was 'most likely' a primitive derivative of tyrannosauroid?
no, we could possibly agree that tyrannosauroids are the same thing as allosauroids but you're going to have to learn some osteology first.

File: Megaraptor hand.jpg (36KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x300px

>>2112633
Well that dilong skull does look very similar.

The third finger on their hands is also poorly developed, as if it was origionally meant to fade away with time. Even the claw for it is petty in comparison.

Maybe it did separate from the later tyrannosaurs at a more earlier stage than something like gorgosaurus.

File: P5080064 (800x600).jpg (199KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 800x600px

>>2117759
>that dilong skull does look very similar.
if looks mattered to taxonomy then dolphins would be fish and tigers would be zebras.
>>2117754
Here's one example:
the authors list D-shaped incisiform premaxillary teeth as a tyrannosauroid trait shared between Dilong and Megaraptor.

here's a D-shaped incisiform premaxillary tooth from a theropod dinosaur. Notice that it's flat on one face and rounded on the other, giving it a D shaped cross section.

do you know what dinosaur this is?

This is the right first premaxillary tooth of Allosaurus. One of the main diagnostic synapomorphies of Tyrannosauroidea is found in Allosaurus. It's not the only one....