|
Post by chelydrid on Jul 22, 2008 17:52:07 GMT
After compairing the Baryonyx and the Spinosaur; I see alot of similarities. Are these two saurians related? They sure look like they could be. On that note; the Procon deluxe version of the Baryonyx looks pretty good in the photos I've seen on the web. Anybody got that one in their collection yet?
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 22, 2008 17:56:24 GMT
After compairing the Baryonyx and the Spinosaur; I see alot of similarities. Are these two saurians related? They sure look like they could be. On that note; the Procon deluxe version of the Baryonyx looks pretty good in the photos I've seen on the web. Anybody got that one in their collection yet? very closely - Bary is a spinosaurid.
|
|
|
Post by chelydrid on Jul 22, 2008 18:48:26 GMT
Thanks for the info. The Baryonyx and the Spinosaur for that matter; seem to be in a class all of their own. In other words: Not your average dinosaur. The Spinosaur reminds me of a "Super Dimetrodon"LOL! (I like Dimetrodons).
|
|
|
Post by dinoboy on Jul 22, 2008 19:26:49 GMT
They are/were both piscavores. Yes?
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jul 22, 2008 22:07:00 GMT
I've heard that Dimetrodon ate Pelycosaurs, insects, and other animals. I don't know if they ate fish or not. Where did you see that.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 22, 2008 22:43:34 GMT
well I think it's very likely that spinosaurids ate fish because of the shape of the mouth and its structure
|
|
|
Post by dinowight on Jul 23, 2008 0:08:29 GMT
Woah there, Children! Spinosaurs are known to have been piscivores, from scales and other fish remains found in the stomach cavity. Hwever, there is also evidence for a more terrestrial diet, as Baryonyx was found with a juvenile Iguanodon bone in it's stomach. Dimetrodon is NOTHING to do with Spinosaurs. The neural spines are of a different morphology, they belong to different groups, they miss each other by several tens of millions of years, keep them as far from each other in your mind as humanly possible!
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jul 23, 2008 2:32:58 GMT
They are about 165 million years apart. Nobody said they were the same. The question is did they both ate fish? I have never heard of anyone saying that Dimetrodons ate fish until Dinoboys remarks. What you say about Spinosaurs diet I have heard before.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jul 23, 2008 2:48:51 GMT
It appears that Dimetrodon did eat fish. Bakker has speculated that they preyed on Xenacanthus.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jul 23, 2008 3:06:31 GMT
I see the article your talking about. It makes me a little uneasy when Bakker says his evidence is undisputable though.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jul 23, 2008 4:59:29 GMT
I know, Bakker may not be the most reliable paleontologist out there, but then again, there's no real reason why we shouldn't believe the evidence (coprolites, teeth and such)
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jul 23, 2008 21:26:38 GMT
What did they find in the coprolites," Xenacanthus bones"!? Also how do they know its from Dimetrodon instead of some other animal?
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 23, 2008 22:04:00 GMT
Yeah, what is the reference for this work by Bakker?
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jul 24, 2008 2:38:07 GMT
Yeah, what is the reference for this work by Bakker? hmnspaleo.blogspot.com/2007/10/xenacanthus-permian-oddball.htmlWhat did they find in the coprolites," Xenacanthus bones"!? Also how do they know its from Dimetrodon instead of some other animal? Well, it is clear that the Xenacanthus lived near the Dimetrodon, and the Dimetrodon was the apex predator, so do the math.
|
|
|
Post by dinowight on Jul 24, 2008 20:20:07 GMT
Yeah, what is the reference for this work by Bakker? hmnspaleo.blogspot.com/2007/10/xenacanthus-permian-oddball.htmlWhat did they find in the coprolites," Xenacanthus bones"!? Also how do they know its from Dimetrodon instead of some other animal? Well, it is clear that the Xenacanthus lived near the Dimetrodon, and the Dimetrodon was the apex predator, so do the math. Actually, what that Blog says is that Xenacanthus bones were found in the same place as Dimetrodon coprolites, not that the bones were in the coprolite. Big difference. Anyway, "Do the Math(s!)" is hardly the strongest basic for working out diet. Baryonyx is a contempary of Polacanthus, but it's very unlikely that one ate the other.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 24, 2008 20:42:57 GMT
Actually, what that Blog says is that Xenacanthus bones were found in the same place as Dimetrodon coprolites, not that the bones were in the coprolite. Big difference. Anyway, "Do the Math(s!)" is hardly the strongest basic for working out diet. Baryonyx is a contempary of Polacanthus, but it's very unlikely that one ate the other. I don't know, I could see a Polacanthus chasing down and devouring a Baryonyx ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jul 24, 2008 22:41:19 GMT
Tomhet can you show me your conclusion and then back it up showing your work for this mathmatical problem. I'm not saying Dimetrodon didn't eat Xenacanthus just that I need more evidense. Eventually Bakker will write something about it and maybe we will have more to judge this claim by.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jul 25, 2008 0:39:51 GMT
OK, nobody ate Xenacanthus then.
|
|
|
Post by dinowight on Jul 25, 2008 19:17:50 GMT
OK, nobody ate Xenacanthus then. I'm not saying that nobody ate Xenacanthus, but that there is no evidence for Dimetrodon eating it. Dimetrodon was no apparent adaptations for piscivory, unless someone can produce a paper saying otherwise, then I will bow down to your greater knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jul 25, 2008 21:18:35 GMT
I also didn't say that nobody didn't eat Xenacanthus! Dimetrodon is a predator and will eat meat. If a dead fish is lying on the bank I'd expect Dimetrodon would eat it. So would Dimetrodon scavage or hunt. Would it catch the fish on land or in the water. If he was hunting I'd expect he'd have to go into the water, which will know he hung around. He doesn't appear to have any water adaptions and the fish isn't going to jump into his mouth!
|
|