|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 3, 2009 0:26:34 GMT
All reptiles have scales. That includes Mosasaurs. Why on earth is this so important to everyone, causing them to insult others and make rude comments? Its just as big as feather arguments. Wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about other qualities or behaviors? ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 3, 2009 0:39:29 GMT
I am sorry T. It is so heated because it is not about the scales anymore. Those of us involved have allowed it to become personal, so we reacted personally. It happened, its done. Promise. Impulse and anger management are two things I really strive to work on, not always with a lot of success. I have tried to modify or delete the posts I meant as attacks, and again offer my apologies to Ning,, the admins and any readers this mess has distressed.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 3, 2009 1:36:53 GMT
Ning, are you ever going to post some photos of you with your reptiles and your neat fossils and such ?
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 3, 2009 5:57:33 GMT
If one went to enough trouble, this would be testable -- create that scale impression on a large surface, then examine it at successively farther and father distances. You'd also want to use different color patterns and levels of glossiness, probably, and maybe submerge the scale impression as well for underwater photography.
It's wayyyyy too much work for the payoff, IMO, but it could be done.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 3, 2009 7:34:05 GMT
Ya, that was something I had been meaning to discuss before I lost my way....
when doing paintings, the lighting conditions are everything, especially if the artist is striving to place the animal into its environment realistically. You may get a pattern of shadow and highlight from the scales, depending on depth and water clarity, which would all fall under artistic impression. Things like modern digital photography might be able to capture the scale pattern or even individual scales, my the naked eye likely would not, underwater. There might at best be the impression of texture, difficult to capture in a painting. In my artistic opinion, I think showing the scales too sharply would end up looking too sharp and unreal.
Now, in an illustrative drawing, it would be more appropriate to suggest the texture at least ( like with watercolor etc for basic illustration work), or with pen and pencil work, very fine detail work could be accomplished, with the scale texture actually working to produce a better effect...
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 3, 2009 11:34:54 GMT
Ning, are you ever going to post some photos of you with your reptiles and your neat fossils and such ? I asked for my lost password to photobucket again yesterday, and it never came. The system seems to be broken. It seems this forum won't let me just load pictures from my PC files like others allow. I guess I'll have to make a new account, and do want to show them here. I also found the copy of Reptiles Magazine with the giant water monitor I caught in Sri Lanka, and will scan it when I get back to the Museum on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 3, 2009 11:48:23 GMT
All reptiles have scales. That includes Mosasaurs. Why on earth is this so important to everyone, causing them to insult others and make rude comments? Its just as big as feather arguments. Wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about other qualities or behaviors? ;D Hey, I just saw the photo of the actual, heavily keeled scales of the Tylosaurus and thought it would be an interesting subject to discuss, especially since everyone is anticipating the Carnegie toy, and since there is a lot of art that portrays them as slick and smooth as an orca. I don't believe I was rude to anyone here. I did comment on the absurdity of a quoted paper in which the writer postulated that smaller sharks preyed on large Tylosaurs because it is just as ridiculous as smaller sharks preying on orcas. In all liklihood, the tooth marks on their bones are from scavenged dead bodies of Tylos. In fact, we do know from stomach contents that tylos ate fairly large sharks! And to my knowledge, nobody even endorsed that writer's idea here when I made the comment. Nor does this topic have anything to do with "dragons", but I see that accusation has now thankfully disappeared.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 3, 2009 12:05:46 GMT
If one went to enough trouble, this would be testable -- create that scale impression on a large surface, then examine it at successively farther and father distances. You'd also want to use different color patterns and levels of glossiness, probably, and maybe submerge the scale impression as well for underwater photography. It's wayyyyy too much work for the payoff, IMO, but it could be done. Remember as well, that the impressions were from an only ca. 25 foot individual, whereas a truly 'large' tylosaurus would likely have had scales almost twice as large and therefore even more distinctive. But on the other had, there is good evidence of very small scales on other marine reptiles. But there is no question the Tylosaur evolved an armored body, much like crocodilians did. If this made them sightly less speedy, you will have to blame evolution. It was evidently a 'succesful' adaptation. And as surely as these kinds of very distinctive, overlapping scales are highely discernable on living reptiles, particularly so on viper family snakes, they would be on a tylosaur. As mentioned before, the ridged scale is designed for strength. Ancient man made this identical adaptation to the bronze scales of his earliest metal body armor, possibly inspired by observing the scales of living animals. An armored body is a good thing for a large, carnivorous, aquatic animal for it seem to have worked for crocodiles, who are still with us today.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 3, 2009 13:39:52 GMT
But, You have not posted these "photos", nor even a link to where they are, so the rest of us can only take your statement at face value, and it contrdicts every statement, link, and photo posted thus far. In fact, in one of the articles I posted, the author speculated that mosasaur scales disappeared all together as they reached adult hood, giving them much the same appearance as the plesiosaurs and icthyosaurs. I see no evidence at all that they would hace grown larger, and more heavily armored. I wish there were, I personally like that image, But i can find nothing so far that validates your statements. Post the links, you don't need photobucket for that.
As for the sharks eating a tylosaur, scavenging off of a dead carcass IS the simplest and most reasonable explanation, I think. But I can think of one or two more, such as if the mosasaur had been previously wounded, and was bleeding into the water, attracting many sharks in a feeding frenzy. And, if it were as heavily scaled as you suggest, it would be slower and less maneuverable than sharks, and need to surface now and then fr air. So I see that as one possibility. The other, similar one, is a sick tylosaur too tired to really defend itself well. Sharks would sense that, not have as much fear of attacking I think. Any number of things along these lines. But yes, scavenging is the most obvious, and likeliest answer there, I think.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 3, 2009 16:13:49 GMT
Ning, are you ever going to post some photos of you with your reptiles and your neat fossils and such ? I asked for my lost password to photobucket again yesterday, and it never came. The system seems to be broken. It seems this forum won't let me just load pictures from my PC files like others allow. I guess I'll have to make a new account, and do want to show them here. I also found the copy of Reptiles Magazine with the giant water monitor I caught in Sri Lanka, and will scan it when I get back to the Museum on Monday. Excellent! I look forward to seeing them when I return. I hope photobucket stops being such a pain for you to use.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 3, 2009 16:42:46 GMT
"And as surely as these kinds of very distinctive, overlapping scales are highely discernable on living reptiles, particularly so on viper family snakes, they would be on a tylosaur." www.oceansofkansas.com/Mosasaurs3/tyloskin.jpgwww.oceansofkansas.com/images2/snowskin.jpgwww.oceansofkansas.com/FieldGuide3.htmlThey do look (the skin impressions) very much like the scales of modern viperidae. taos-telecommunity.org/epow/epow-archive/archive_2003/EPOW-031201_files/rattlesnake_11_keeled_dorsal_scales.jpgThat was a surprise to me initially when I first saw this as I would have personally expected the scales to look more like the scales of varanids, or helodermids - and they really don't. (I am pretty sure this sort of thing already came up on this list before ?) Neither of those animals have overlapping scales like that. "But there is no question the Tylosaur evolved an armored body, much like crocodilians did." Really ? What evidence do you have to support that claim ? I have seen nothing to that affect. (Dinotoyforum, marine reptiles are your thing, know anything about this ?) I would also note that not a single species of snake OR varanid have "armored" bodies like crocodilians, (helodermids do to a degree - see digimorph skeleton below) though a few varanids like the albigs and ilk have some slightly enlarged scales around their neck/shoulders, they are hardly anything like crocodilian ostroderms. (Heloderma suspectum skeleton) digimorph.org/specimens/Heloderma_suspectum/adult/specimen.jpgdigimorph.org/specimens/Heloderma_suspectum/juvenile/whole/specimen.jpgI do not believe any of the mosasaur skeletons have been found with anything like these scales present on these animals (granted, I could just be woefully ignorant of those finds as well, so if anyone can provide information regarding osteoderms or a similar body covering on mosasaurs, it would be highly appreciated!)
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jan 3, 2009 17:14:49 GMT
Really ? What evidence do you have to support that claim ? I have seen nothing to that affect. (Dinotoyforum, marine reptiles are your thing, know anything about this ?) I'm trying to keep out of this thread now, the evidence is on the table. Everyone's horses are on their last legs and it won't be long before they are deceased and being beat. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 3, 2009 17:18:07 GMT
Well, I have been asking, CCM, but so far nobody but you and I have posted pics, let alone any supporting the idea of heavily armored skin or keratin scales or....If the info is out there, no one is posting it here. I did post some of what you just did a bit earlier. It really is an informative little site. Mmm I still do not see evidence of heavy armoring though. And do we have any skin from the face and neck. I forgot to look, where is the impression pictured from, bodywise? Do we know? Sorry Dr A. I am not meaning to argue, I am genuinely curious for more supported evidence. I just wanna know more. And I think CCM was on vacation and missed out, so , you know, has to get in a little time. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 3, 2009 19:39:43 GMT
But, You have not posted these "photos", nor even a link to where they are, so the rest of us can only take your statement at face value, and it contrdicts every statement, link, and photo posted thus far. In fact, in one of the articles I posted, the author speculated that mosasaur scales disappeared all together as they reached adult hood, giving them much the same appearance as the plesiosaurs and icthyosaurs. I see no evidence at all that they would hace grown larger, and more heavily armored. I wish there were, I personally like that image, But i can find nothing so far that validates your statements. Post the links, you don't need photobucket for that. As for the sharks eating a tylosaur, scavenging off of a dead carcass IS the simplest and most reasonable explanation, I think. But I can think of one or two more, such as if the mosasaur had been previously wounded, and was bleeding into the water, attracting many sharks in a feeding frenzy. And, if it were as heavily scaled as you suggest, it would be slower and less maneuverable than sharks, and need to surface now and then fr air. So I see that as one possibility. The other, similar one, is a sick tylosaur too tired to really defend itself well. Sharks would sense that, not have as much fear of attacking I think. Any number of things along these lines. But yes, scavenging is the most obvious, and likeliest answer there, I think. I referred to the same photos that were posted later on, from the original article, and also in the Wiki article on the Tylosaur. I think the liklihood of sharks preying on a larger Mosasaur are as unlikely as sharks preying on an orca. Maybe they would attack a wounded orca, though I know of no recorded accounts of such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 3, 2009 19:48:14 GMT
Depends on the shark. If the particular shark is very hungry, and there is a tired/worn out tylosaur just floating there, I wouldn't be surprised if the shark were to bite off some meat. Have you ever heard of cookie cutter sharks? They are tiny, yet they eat.. Whales and dolphins like orcas! If there was a mosasaur that had just given birth, it would most likely be "off it's game", and sharks would probably be (at the least) "attracted" to it. Although I have to agree, it was most likely sharks scavenging off of a dead tylosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 3, 2009 19:49:07 GMT
"And as surely as these kinds of very distinctive, overlapping scales are highely discernable on living reptiles, particularly so on viper family snakes, they would be on a tylosaur." www.oceansofkansas.com/Mosasaurs3/tyloskin.jpgwww.oceansofkansas.com/images2/snowskin.jpgwww.oceansofkansas.com/FieldGuide3.htmlThey do look (the skin impressions) very much like the scales of modern viperidae. taos-telecommunity.org/epow/epow-archive/archive_2003/EPOW-031201_files/rattlesnake_11_keeled_dorsal_scales.jpgThat was a surprise to me initially when I first saw this as I would have personally expected the scales to look more like the scales of varanids, or helodermids - and they really don't. (I am pretty sure this sort of thing already came up on this list before ?) Neither of those animals have overlapping scales like that. "But there is no question the Tylosaur evolved an armored body, much like crocodilians did." Really ? What evidence do you have to support that claim ? I have seen nothing to that affect. (Dinotoyforum, marine reptiles are your thing, know anything about this ?) I would also note that not a single species of snake OR varanid have "armored" bodies like crocodilians, (helodermids do to a degree - see digimorph skeleton below) though a few varanids like the albigs and ilk have some slightly enlarged scales around their neck/shoulders, they are hardly anything like crocodilian ostroderms. (Heloderma suspectum skeleton) digimorph.org/specimens/Heloderma_suspectum/adult/specimen.jpgdigimorph.org/specimens/Heloderma_suspectum/juvenile/whole/specimen.jpgI do not believe any of the mosasaur skeletons have been found with anything like these scales present on these animals (granted, I could just be woefully ignorant of those finds as well, so if anyone can provide information regarding osteoderms or a similar body covering on mosasaurs, it would be highly appreciated!) I did NOT mean to imply Mosasaurs had dermal scutes like a crocodile, but like a crocodile had a body protected by keratin armo in the form of operlapping scales. And the strongest type of snake scale are those thick ridged overlapping scales we see in vipers and also tylosaurs. I agree that these seemed unusual given the relationship of varanids to mosasaurs. The scales of a snake are not a very effective armor if struck by a much larger human with a machete. But it is an excellent armor against smaller predators and prey that do have sharp claws and teeth. And because these scales are so pronounced on vipers, the identical scales would be even more pronounced on 40 foot long tylosaur. It is really cut and dry, and I am amazed how much resistance this has received. I imagine I would get an argument from some of this crowd if I stated "chickens have feathers and here's a photograph to prove it".
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 3, 2009 22:08:09 GMT
Who is arguing that they didn't have scales? I thought everybody agreed on that.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 3, 2009 22:18:26 GMT
I did NOT mean to imply Mosasaurs had dermal scutes like a crocodile, but like a crocodile had a body protected by keratin armo in the form of operlapping scales. And the strongest type of snake scale are those thick ridged overlapping scales we see in vipers and also tylosaurs. Snake armor is pretty weak. They are generally fragile animals with pretty soft supple skin. A Roadrunner can take out a small to mid sized rattler with very little trouble. I have seen video of small vipers being eaten by spiders. That fragile nature is why in part they have rattles and venom to help protect them. And because these scales are so pronounced on vipers, the identical scales would be even more pronounced on 40 foot long tylosaur. It is really cut and dry, and I am amazed how much resistance this has received. Well, they "could" have been more pronounced if they were identical. The scales are NOT identical. Very similar, yes. A 40 foot long tylosaur may have had small scales like that all over, large scales like armor, or scales of varying sizes all over its body. Most modern reptiles do. The scales on a blackthroats neck are far more thick and rigid then those on the belly, or say, the pads of its feet. The fact is, the type of scalation on these organisms is NOT "cut and dry". It is not know if these animals had any sort of "armored scales", (they could have, we don't know, and have no support one way or the other for that) or that the scales looked any different then the ones found. I would love to see a size ref on those scales though, to see just how big they are, and what the total size of the specimen they were found on was. I imagine I would get an argument from some of this crowd if I stated "chickens have feathers and here's a photograph to prove it". Well, I won't argue too much there. Look at Archaeopteryx, Liaoning and all of the feathered theropods, and how many people have a hard time with that. We have far more evidence to support feathered maniraptorian dinosaurs then we do t rex parenting, pack hunting theropods or theropod lips.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 3, 2009 22:58:54 GMT
I don't know how your are missing this CCM. Overlapping keratin scales ARE armor, and protect snakes from a great deal of trauma. Humans made a similar armor out of overlapping horn scales, really just a scaled up version of what snakes have. When scaled up to this size they appear very protective indeed. The best armored ones have these scales with a reinforced medial ridge as we see on the tylosaur. Sure, they don't protect the creature from every attack, but they certainly give it far more protection than feathers, hair, or bare skin skin would.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 4, 2009 2:55:02 GMT
I don't know how your are missing this CCM. Overlapping keratin scales ARE armor, and protect snakes from a great deal of trauma. Humans made a similar armor out of overlapping horn scales, really just a scaled up version of what snakes have. When scaled up to this size they appear very protective indeed. The best armored ones have these scales with a reinforced medial ridge as we see on the tylosaur. Sure, they don't protect the creature from every attack, but they certainly give it far more protection than feathers, hair, or bare skin skin would. ;D Ning there is no evidence to support armour on Tylosaurs or Mososaurs. Teton and CCM have supplied all the evidence. You've proved nothing, Keratin scales are not armour. My hair is keratin and it's soft. My skin contains Keratin, am I armoured? Where is your evidence that Tylosaurs had reinforced medial ridges? ;D
|
|