|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Mar 27, 2009 7:38:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 27, 2009 8:10:07 GMT
Incredible! Talk about shrinking Diplodocus and Apatosaurus!
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 27, 2009 8:35:53 GMT
I'm back..ran over to a friend's house for pizza and stayed for the end of a movie...lol it was about 1:30 here..now it's a little after 4.30 almost my bed time.
So not much to go on I guess...eh ?
For a Titanosaur then... this guy Puertasaurus reuili ( another I'd never heard of ) might be the largest and therefore best ( in my opinion ) to do... though I wonder if it lived about the same time as Giganotosaurus... I really wanted to do an Argentinosaurus w/ Giga diorama at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Mar 27, 2009 9:04:10 GMT
I think outta all of these, the next big one I'd like to see is an Argentinosaurus, and with some Giganotosaurs, that would be especially great!  After looking through alot of this and other stuff, it seems to me that the Argentinosaurus is a little more well known and they actually have more on him than some of these other mega-sauropods. He also stands out with more of an individual look. It seems there are still some who aren't completely convinced that some of these others aren't just larger already known species.... Seismosaurus -- could just be an extra long Diplo Supersaurus -- could just be an extra large Apato Ultrasaurus & Sauroposeidon -- could just be over-grown Brachis But, the Argentinosaurus seems to stand alone a little more uniquely. Maybe it's because he's a Titanosaur. |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 27, 2009 9:45:43 GMT
Some Argentinosaur art I like :    BTW.. I love that last pic... a pack of Giganotosaurs.. can you imagine having all the 1/40 figures needed to pull off that dio ?.... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Mar 27, 2009 20:31:24 GMT
You could just say an argentinasaur is an over-grown saltasaur meso... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Mar 27, 2009 20:54:37 GMT
Well, I definitely couldn't say. I am in no way schooled enough on this topic!  These thoughts about these possibilities come from some of the paleo people in this field. But, you do bring up an interesting point. As far as I know, they have only excavated a few major bones so far of the Argentinosaurus! |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 27, 2009 21:47:06 GMT
If i remember well,some time ago they cocnluded Seismo was just a big specimen of Diplodocus...Not sure about the others,but i think it's safe to assume Sauroposeidon was just a bigger (older?) Brachiosaurus...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 27, 2009 22:27:26 GMT
Nothing is set in stone with every paleontologist yet about the Seis and Sauro ordeals.  Let's not say Argentinasaurus was just a larger Saltasaurus! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Mar 27, 2009 22:41:41 GMT
Nothing is set in stone with every paleontologist yet about the Seis and Sauro ordeals. Let's not say Argentinasaurus was just a larger Saltasaurus! ;D I didn't say that. Meso was comparing all sauropods to something else that looked like them, and he said argentinasaurs looks like nothing else. So I said it looks like an over sized saltasaur for comparison.  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 27, 2009 22:50:16 GMT
I knew you were kidding. I was just saying we better not confuse this Argentinasaurus specimen for a large Saltasaur! ;D Can you imagine?  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by timlee3005 on Mar 27, 2009 22:58:58 GMT
Nothing is set in stone with every paleontologist yet about the Seis and Sauro ordeals. Let's not say Argentinasaurus was just a larger Saltasaurus! ;D Last I heard,Seismosaurus was considered a species of Diplodocus (as D. hallorum) Sauroposeidon is known from four neck vertebrae found in Early Cretaceous rocks in Oklahoma.But I haven't heard anything about it just being a large Brachiosaurus though. I would like to eventually see Saltasaurus and Brachiosaurus too ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Mar 28, 2009 0:57:05 GMT
What I meant was that I thought Argentinosaurus looked different from any of these other mega-sauropds, not than any other sauropod at all. Although, my personal opinion is that the other big ones look more like their counterparts than Agentino looks like an overgrown Salty! Then again, we really don't know exactly what he looks like! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by timlee3005 on Mar 31, 2009 8:23:03 GMT
Here's a little amendment I thought I'd put on here: Here's another interesting bit concerning sauropod anatomy using Diplodocus as a model for where the nosrils would be located in life.  "This rendering reflects the new position of the nostrils on the sauropod dinosaur Diplodocus (left and bottom right). Top right is the skull of Diplodocus; middle right is the traditional view with the nostril located more to the rear of the head, which has been refuted by the new research by Ohio University's Lawrence Witmer." While Whitmer's studies show that a vast majority of animals do have their fleshy nostrils far down the front of the face,there are a few exeptions to that rule,like this nile monitor:  and a monitor skull for comparison:  This means that while the nostrils of most sauropods could well have been down to the front of the face as shown in the top picture (at least I think they were),there is still a possibility for some at least to have had their nostrils located at the nasal opening at the top of their heads like older reconstructions show. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 2, 2009 2:53:21 GMT
Shouldn't we be looking at Archosaurs, instead of Lizards, when contemplating the position of nostrils on Sauropods?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Apr 2, 2009 3:03:24 GMT
^ Yes, but I thought you were camera shy?
;D
April Fools
|
|
|
|
Post by timlee3005 on Apr 2, 2009 7:25:39 GMT
Shouldn't we be looking at Archosaurs, instead of Lizards, when contemplating the position of nostrils on Sauropods? What I meant to show was that this lizard was one of the few exeptions to the rule that most animals have their nosrils located down at the front of the face,usually in the front of the nasal opening in the skull,sometimes even past it like in a komodo dragon,(even more extreme in mammals),not that it was related to the sauropods. The problem with sauropod skulls is there is no modern equivalent,and modern archosaur skulls like the ones below are not even close,so we have to look to similar structures on the skulls of other animals sometimes:     |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Apr 3, 2009 0:21:13 GMT
Nice velociraptor pic at the bottom. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Apr 3, 2009 0:23:48 GMT
The picture of the fleshed out Archosaur is a Crocodile and the skull below it is that of an Alligator, not a Crocodile.
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Apr 3, 2009 0:30:15 GMT
The picture of the fleshed out Archosaur is a Crocodile and the skull below it is that of an Alligator, not a Crocodile. It is a crocodile. Look at the large teeth extending upwards through the "fish trap" at the front of the jaws. Alligators don't have that. |
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
These thoughts about these possibilities come from some of the paleo people in this field. But, you do bring up an interesting point. As far as I know, they have only excavated a few major bones so far of the Argentinosaurus!
;D
;D
