|
Post by therizinosaurus on Feb 17, 2009 1:59:56 GMT
nope......
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 17, 2009 2:02:53 GMT
I'm running out dinosaurs here lol. I can only think of a few! Nanantius? Thats all I have man..
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 17, 2009 2:09:43 GMT
Alright, this one might be tricky: It's a coelurosaur It's from the Southern Hemisphere It's known from only 2 bones Condorraptor from Argentina!
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 17, 2009 2:13:21 GMT
Wrong. The one he is describing is of Australia. Nice avatar stoneage, btw.
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Feb 17, 2009 2:35:05 GMT
Nope...come on, its not that hard.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 17, 2009 2:37:08 GMT
Wrong. The one he is describing is of Australia. Nice avatar stoneage, btw. ;)Well if it's known from Australia then it must be Timimus but I thought that was known from a single Femur not two bones. ;D
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Feb 17, 2009 2:48:06 GMT
/\ Whoo! Finally! But I had read (I think in dinosaurs of darkness) that 2 leg bones were known...
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 17, 2009 2:50:02 GMT
Who cares about an unheard of pair of bones anyway. ;D Yes, I'm a sore loser. ;D Your turn stoneage.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 17, 2009 3:43:56 GMT
;D Known only from a tooth Originally thought to be an Ankylosaur. Early Cretaceous England (130-125MYA) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 17, 2009 3:53:47 GMT
Eshanosaurus ? Prodeinodon?
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 17, 2009 4:05:48 GMT
Eshanosaurus ? Prodeinodon? ;D No their both from China. Both are known from more then just a tooth. Eshanosaurus is from the Early Jurassic not Early Cretaceous. do you need another hint? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 17, 2009 4:07:10 GMT
Prodeinodon is only known from a tooth though...I'm almost positive.
Sure. ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 17, 2009 4:10:37 GMT
Prodeinodon is only known from a tooth though...I'm almost positive. Sure. ;D ;D It's known from tooth fragments rather then a whole tooth! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 17, 2009 4:12:37 GMT
Ahhh...well I was right then.
"Both are known from more then just a tooth" - stoneage
*Cough* Looks like you just proved yourself wrong. ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 17, 2009 4:15:14 GMT
Ahhh...well I was right then. "Both are known from more then just a tooth" - stoneage *Cough* Looks like you just proved yourself wrong. ;D ;D No I think you misunderstand. My Dinosaur is known from a single tooth, your dinosaurs are known from tooth fragments and a jaw bone. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 17, 2009 4:32:54 GMT
I listed two options and you said they were both known for more then just a tooth.
Then you said one was known from fragments of a tooth only. ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 17, 2009 4:36:21 GMT
;D I consider fragments more then one. A tooth fragment would be one. It's really no big deal Tyrannax. Here is another clue. It's a primitive sauropod! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 17, 2009 4:39:31 GMT
Stoneage, you kinda screwed up back there. ;D It may have been a mistype. But you did say, even though I knew otherwise, that both of the dinosaurs I listed were known from "MORE" then just teeth. However, they are known from only bone fragments. At least one of them is Alright.. thanks for the hunt lol.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 17, 2009 4:44:25 GMT
I said more then just a tooth, tooth fragments could be from more then one tooth or possibly a single tooth. I don't know for sure. Fragments are more then one piece though. I didn't mean to confuse the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 17, 2009 4:45:42 GMT
That's alright stoneage. ;D
|
|