|
|
Post by lio99 on Feb 10, 2011 23:36:30 GMT
Did you now in Mexico they found a liopleurodon 18m long and it was still a juvenile, so maybe, just maybe walking with dinosaurs was right!
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 10, 2011 23:42:52 GMT
Did you now in Mexico they found a liopleurodon 18m long and it was still a juvenile, so maybe, just maybe walking with dinosaurs was right! They found a partial vertebral column of a pliosaur that cannot be justifiably assigned to Liopleurodon, and 18m is a speculative estimate of the animal's size (shorter lengths have also been estimated, but it was a big animal for sure). From the abstract: "The morphology of the vertebral column is not diagnostic beyond family level." So it's certainly a pliosaurid pliosauroid plesiosaur (tongue twister!) but cannot be assigned to Liopleurodon. |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Feb 11, 2011 0:13:46 GMT
Liopleurodon walkingwthdynohsaursensis
|
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Feb 23, 2011 8:35:15 GMT
The suffix -ensis is only used when naming a species after a place. With my limited knowledge of naming stuff, I'll correct you and say Liopleurodon walkingwithdinosaursi
|
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Feb 23, 2011 20:27:17 GMT
The suffix -ensis is only used when naming a species after a place. With my limited knowledge of naming stuff, I'll correct you and say Liopleurodon walkingwithdinosaursi ;D |
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Feb 24, 2011 3:12:31 GMT
palaeontologists have found huge bite marks on that big fish, i forgot its name, well anyway, the bite marks was obviously liopleurodon, and was a 24m long male!!   |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 24, 2011 4:03:41 GMT
palaeontologists have found huge bite marks on that big fish, i forgot its name, well anyway, the bite marks was obviously liopleurodon, and was a 24m long male!!  WWD was probably wrong about Liopleurodons size! Size issue Estimating the maximum size of Liopleurodon has become a controversial subject. The paleontologist L. B. Tarlo derived that the total body length of a pliosaur (including Liopleurodon) can be estimated from skull length, in which the skull is approximately one seventh of the entire body. The largest known skull belongs to L. ferox (1.5 meters in length), and according to Tarlo's estimation, this individual would be about 11 m (38 ft) long. However, as with its relative Kronosaurus, there is some uncertainty as to whether Tarlo's estimations are correct.[4] Recent studies on pliosaurs have cast doubt on Tarlo's estimations, and indicate that pliosaur skulls were about one-fifth of the total body length. Hence, the average size of the L. ferox would have ranged from 7 meters (23 feet) to 10 meters (33 feet) long.[4] The size estimate of Liopleurodon from the 1999 BBC series Walking with Dinosaurs, which depicts an enormous 25 meter-long Liopleurodon, is not considered to be accurate for any species of Liopleurodon.[4] Pliosaur remains excavated from Kimmeridge Clay Formation of England indicate a much larger taxon, possibly up to 15 meters (49.2 feet long), existed, however they have not been identified as being to Liopleurodon.[4] A mandible on display in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History estimated over 3 meters (preserved 2.875m) was at one time classified as Liopleurodon macromerus. When the mandible was described, it was originally assigned to Stretosaurus (as Stretosaurus macromerus).[5] The genus Stretosaurus later became a junior synonym of Liopleurodon.[6] However, it has been re-classified as Pliosaurus macromerus.[7] The discovery of an another very large pliosaur was announced in 2002, from Mexico. This pliosaur came to be known as the 'Monster of Aramberri'. The size of this specimen has been estimated to be about 15 meters (49.2 feet) long and it had a 10 foot long skull. Consequently, although widely reported as such, it does not belong to the genus Liopleurodon.[4] The remains of this animal consisting of a partial vertebral column, were dated to the Kimmeridgian of the La Caja Formation.[8] The fossils were actually found much earlier in 1985 by a geology student and were at first erroneously attributed to a theropod dinosaur by Hahnel.[9] The remains also originally contained part of a rostrum with teeth (now lost). |
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Feb 24, 2011 4:18:57 GMT
I know I know, typical wikipedia.  |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 24, 2011 4:27:29 GMT
I know I know, typical wikipedia.  Yes, but I believe that is what current scientific thought is today. Why don't you ask Adam what he thinks. He's the expert! |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 24, 2011 6:02:17 GMT
palaeontologists have found huge bite marks on that big fish, i forgot its name, well anyway, the bite marks was obviously liopleurodon, and was a 24m long male!! Where's the study showing that it's from Liopleurodon and not one of the dozens of other known pliosaurs? And how can they possibly know it was male based on bite marks? sounds like wishful thinking. Yeah, typical Wikipedia, letting facts get in the way of good science fiction. Next thing you know they'll post an article saying Indiana Jones wasn't even a real person!  |
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Feb 24, 2011 6:58:49 GMT
palaeontologists have found huge bite marks on that big fish, i forgot its name, well anyway, the bite marks was obviously liopleurodon, and was a 24m long male!! Where's the study showing that it's from Liopleurodon and not one of the dozens of other known pliosaurs? And how can they possibly know it was male based on bite marks? sounds like wishful thinking. Yeah, typical Wikipedia, letting facts get in the way of good science fiction. Next thing you know they'll post an article saying Indiana Jones wasn't even a real person! Scientist's know how big and how long ago dinosaurs were, just from teeth marks. And liopleurodon was the only Jurassic sea monster that was huge!!! |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 24, 2011 7:05:10 GMT
I see a name problem here.
I think this thread would get to the center of the matter if we changed the topic to:
How big was the largest PLIOSAUR?
Well - Is it the Pliosaur whose lower jaw we have in the UK, the Monster from Mexico, or "Predator X" from up in the Nordic area?
Dr. Adam? Anyone have an idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 24, 2011 10:15:34 GMT
Where's the study showing that it's from Liopleurodon and not one of the dozens of other known pliosaurs? And how can they possibly know it was male based on bite marks? sounds like wishful thinking. Yeah, typical Wikipedia, letting facts get in the way of good science fiction. Next thing you know they'll post an article saying Indiana Jones wasn't even a real person! Scientist's know how big and how long ago dinosaurs were, just from teeth marks. And liopleurodon was the only Jurassic sea monster that was huge!!! Except, maybe, you know, it actually being A NEW SPECIES? Tends to happen. Would you say Giganotosaurus was Tyrannosaurus because the latter was the only Cretacic land monster that was that huge? Think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Feb 24, 2011 11:19:20 GMT
Where's the study showing that it's from Liopleurodon and not one of the dozens of other known pliosaurs? And how can they possibly know it was male based on bite marks? sounds like wishful thinking. Yeah, typical Wikipedia, letting facts get in the way of good science fiction. Next thing you know they'll post an article saying Indiana Jones wasn't even a real person! Scientist's know how big and how long ago dinosaurs were, just from teeth marks. And liopleurodon was the only Jurassic sea monster that was huge!!! Big, maybe, age, no. Also, Leedsicthys says hi. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 24, 2011 19:27:15 GMT
The size of Leedsichthys has been rather overestimated too...although not as much as some pliosaurs (as far as I'm aware - a blue whale size Liopleurodon, extrapolating from circa 7-10m long individuals, is patently ludicrous).
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 25, 2011 4:29:00 GMT
I see a name problem here. I think this thread would get to the center of the matter if we changed the topic to: How big was the largest PLIOSAUR? Well - Is it the Pliosaur whose lower jaw we have in the UK, the Monster from Mexico, or "Predator X" from up in the Nordic area? Dr. Adam? Anyone have an idea? I think that may be the problem lio99 seems to be using "Liopleurodon" as a synonym for "pliosaur." Kinda like using an article on Bruhathkayosaurus to prove that King Kong was right about the size of Brontosaurus. |
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 25, 2011 17:59:53 GMT
Did you now in Mexico they found a liopleurodon 18m long and it was still a juvenile, so maybe, just maybe walking with dinosaurs was right! Already mentionned in another thread. We have to await the official publication. But for now, what is what I know from the researchers in question. The Aramberri pliosaur was firstly designed as a Liopleurodon but is more likely a new taxon and could be a old kronosaurids. Its size is estimated to be 15 and 18 m, 15 being the most conservative, but Dr Frey stating 18 m more likely. The skull would be around 3,5 m long. A first weight estimate gave a 50 tonnes weight for this animal. The lack of fusion in the bones, and the structures indicate it would be a juvenile specimen. Though some paleontologists believe it could be a pedomorphy (juvenile characters in adult individual), Frey and Buchy are still convinced that the animal is juvenile. In the skull, there are two bite marks from a battle. Dr Frey and Buchy are convinced that these marks were made by a much larger pliosaur. One tooth broke through the pterygoid. To do this the tooth must have penetrated at least 40 cm of soft tissue. Size estimates for the agressor, probably an adult, vary but are around 25 or 30 m long and is stated by Frey as the biggest predator of all time. This juvenile pliosaur gave some new credits to the BBC for accord again to Liopleurodon in the show Sea Monsters a 25 m behemoth. Even without a Liopleurodon species, this is actually possible that such pliosaurs lived in late Jurassic. But we have to wait again... |
|
|
|
Post by roselaar on Mar 25, 2011 20:24:11 GMT
Yay, more obsessive Liopleurodon threads. I'm more of a Kronosaurus guy myself. |
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 27, 2011 19:02:42 GMT
No matters it was a Liopleurodon species or not (unlikely at present), it was a kind of pliosaur perhaps of a size unrivaled by any other macropredator in history. There will be a conference in Germany the 11/04/11 about it, and as I've seen, even not described since 10 years, the specimen is considered as a juvenile yet and as large as an adult sperm whale, even with further studies and reports about it.
Now keep in mind that it was killed by bigger. It means that the jurassic seas had one species of pliosaur able to kill in one bite another predator about the size of a sperm whale of an adult Megalodon. So much for the BBC Liopleurodon.
"Dr. Eberhard "Dino" Frey: "The biggest predator of all time has left on our specimen some tracks. From the bite marks on the skull due to the skull dimensions of the victim and the teeth marks left by an even larger attacker, I can calculate that the hunter of our victim must have been well over 20 meters long. "
And to make clear, it was the largest predator, on the track, that has ever lived on earth - a gigantic pliosaur probably up to 25 meters in length."
|
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Mar 27, 2011 20:07:57 GMT
The name please?
|
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
WWD was probably wrong about Liopleurodons size!
Yes, but I believe that is what current scientific thought is today. Why don't you ask Adam what he thinks. He's the expert!
