|
Post by bucketfoot on Oct 15, 2009 5:53:09 GMT
Some people think it was just some grass. Seriously? Grass didn't even exist back then. Well, as you no doubt know, grass has now been found in the Cretaceous (hence the TRexes and Triceratops saw it and ate it, respectively). How far back in the Cretaceous does it go? Stay tuned. Psittacosaurus wasn't all that deep in the Cretaceous, so...just might be.....
|
|
|
Post by nobs on Oct 15, 2009 12:32:06 GMT
Dang it I de-railed this thread! Must get back on topic! So it seems that WS has been releasing lots of pterosaurs here lately ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) The past 4-5 years have seen 3 new ones added (including the rhamp.)
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 15, 2009 12:58:48 GMT
Its weird. As far as I know, only that one psittaco fossil has quills. All of the sudden I start seeing reconstructions of all kinds of other ceratopsians with quills as well. Its not absolutely wrong but really, until further evidence surfaces, for all we know psittacosaurus could have just been a bizarre dinosaur. That's almost the same problem regarding modern restorations of Dromeosaurids... Only because a bunch of species had feathers, it's not really certain that ALL the clade was made of equally feathered critters; it's not wrong to restore 'em that way, granted, but, as you say, until further evidence surfaces, we can't be sure of it, despite some people would believe ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 15, 2009 13:23:22 GMT
Seriously? Grass didn't even exist back then. Well, as you no doubt know, grass has now been found in the Cretaceous (hence the TRexes and Triceratops saw it and ate it, respectively). How far back in the Cretaceous does it go? Stay tuned. Psittacosaurus wasn't all that deep in the Cretaceous, so...just might be..... The time is right--except the only finds of grass pollen are from North America. The other problem is that the grass was not the same type of grass as we think of today--it was not long and bladed in the same way. But the fact remains that it would not really be that hard to tell grass apart from hair or collagen under even a good light microscope--anyone trying to use this argument has probably not looked at the specimen itself.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 15, 2009 14:19:03 GMT
That's almost the same problem regarding modern restorations of Dromeosaurids... Only because a bunch of species had feathers, it's not really certain that ALL the clade was made of equally feathered critters; it's not wrong to restore 'em that way, granted, but, as you say, until further evidence surfaces, we can't be sure of it, despite some people would believe ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I'd say that given that a number of pretty basal maniraptorans possessed feathers it's pretty safe to assume that later forms retained them. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) It's not the same as with Psittacosaurus, which is but one genus - we have a number of known feathered maniraptorans, including feathered dromaeosaurs seemingly more basal than the likes of Velociraptor (although that appears to have had attachments for flight feathers, in spite of being flightless, indicating it was probably secondarily flightless). See www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5845/1721Not that I wish to start this whole thing again. OK, so I just did.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 15, 2009 16:51:01 GMT
Ya, but now their is suppoed evidence that triceratops also had some sort of spines or quills to at least some extent, which is two very different ceratopsians that would have them, if true.....
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 15, 2009 17:11:25 GMT
Ya, but now their is suppoed evidence that triceratops also had some sort of spines or quills to at least some extent, which is two very different ceratopsians that would have them, if true..... Are you talkin' about the Trike mummy we discussed some time ago, right?
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Oct 15, 2009 17:17:58 GMT
^ I want to be the to hop in here and say we don't really know *what* sort of thing those quills are. They definitely appear legit, but the quills don't appear to branch like feathers, so to label them AS feathers, or something structurally close to feathers, seems a bit of an early jump. Sure, they could be something like a feather, and feathers might just have been a common dinosaur integument that crossed many a genus/species, but we don't know what yet.
They could just have been another sort of derived structure we don't see on any living, modern animal, or even something closer in relation to the neck spikes on an iguana.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 15, 2009 18:01:36 GMT
Yep, and it seems even the odd and strange dinos just keep getting stranger
|
|
|
Post by john2xtheman on Oct 15, 2009 18:34:47 GMT
Just to drive everyone insane,what will the Carnegie Museum dinosaurs for 2011 be?Or the late 2010 Humboldt Natural History Museum dinosaurs from Schleich?Or the 2011 Bullyland and Procon dinosaurs? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 15, 2009 18:40:33 GMT
They definitely appear legit, but the quills don't appear to branch like feathers, so to label them AS feathers, or something structurally close to feathers, seems a bit of an early jump Hang on...who was referring to them as 'feathers' or even 'like feathers'? I can't find the post!
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 15, 2009 18:50:57 GMT
Well, apparently demoncarnotaur knows what the 2011 carnegies will be.... But, of course, no word can be spoken about them ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) Sbell figured out the next schleich figs by looking at the lowest product numbers. Apparently the two trex's and the triceratops will be retired, only to be replaced. But hopefully they won't find the need to keep two trex up and running, so maybe they'll make a marine reptile considering how well those are doing lately (maybe a mosasaur?) Since bullyland has had a few safe years of making dinos (good investments like velociraptor, anky etc.) maybe they'll make something more interesting like postosuchus or a new hadrosaur! As for procon, just about anything would make sense ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 15, 2009 21:04:23 GMT
Well, as you no doubt know, grass has now been found in the Cretaceous (hence the TRexes and Triceratops saw it and ate it, respectively). How far back in the Cretaceous does it go? Stay tuned. Psittacosaurus wasn't all that deep in the Cretaceous, so...just might be..... The time is right--except the only finds of grass pollen are from North America. The other problem is that the grass was not the same type of grass as we think of today--it was not long and bladed in the same way. But the fact remains that it would not really be that hard to tell grass apart from hair or collagen under even a good light microscope--anyone trying to use this argument has probably not looked at the specimen itself. According to this article at least 5 different pollens of grass have been found. Also it says it has been found in India. www.newscientist.com/article/dn8336--fossil-dung-reveals-dinosaurs-did-graze-grass.html
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 15, 2009 21:06:26 GMT
Still, they weren't really like grasses of today...
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Oct 15, 2009 21:16:11 GMT
Ya, but now their is suppoed evidence that triceratops also had some sort of spines or quills to at least some extent, which is two very different ceratopsians that would have them, if true..... I'm still waiting for more information on that trike mummy to come out before I start believing it.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 15, 2009 21:33:45 GMT
Still, they weren't really like grasses of today... ![](http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv85/stoneage_2009/gm-rice-h-i-001.jpg) If you read the article it says some of the phytoliths are related to rice (a type of grass) pictured above. Which does look similiar . We have no pictures or fossils that I am aware of, so how do you know how they looked? ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png)
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Oct 15, 2009 21:45:40 GMT
They definitely appear legit, but the quills don't appear to branch like feathers, so to label them AS feathers, or something structurally close to feathers, seems a bit of an early jump Hang on...who was referring to them as 'feathers' or even 'like feathers'? I can't find the post! No one in this thread, but others have before.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 15, 2009 21:48:50 GMT
Still, they weren't really like grasses of today... ![](http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv85/stoneage_2009/gm-rice-h-i-001.jpg) If you read the article it says some of the phytoliths are related to rice (a type of grass) pictured above. Which does look similiar . We have no pictures or fossils that I am aware of, so how do you know how they looked? ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) The article said that these types of "grasses" were up to several meters tall-- I'm guessing that they would be bamboo-type thingies, and it said that titanosaurs probably ate them-- So how a bamboo-like plant transformed into the psittacosaurus quills I'll never know...
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 15, 2009 21:54:15 GMT
![](http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv85/stoneage_2009/gm-rice-h-i-001.jpg) If you read the article it says some of the phytoliths are related to rice (a type of grass) pictured above. Which does look similiar . We have no pictures or fossils that I am aware of, so how do you know how they looked? ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) The article said that these types of "grasses" were up to several meters tall-- I'm guessing that they would be bamboo-type thingies, and it said that titanosaurs probably ate them-- So how a bamboo-like plant transformed into the psittacosaurus quills I'll never know... To be honest, I can't even find a reference to the 'quills' as grass.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 15, 2009 21:59:53 GMT
I think it was just suggested by a member here a looonnggg time ago that they could have been a "plant"-- And that evolved into saying "they could have just been grass...".
|
|