ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 27, 2011 20:15:34 GMT
As I said, the animal isn't published yet, so no name available. It was firstly seen as a Liopleurodon species, but it appears to be not. However, it could have been an ancient parents of kronosaurs.
As Dr Frey and Buchy said in an interview, the pliosaurs of Tethys sea didn't appear to have greatly exceed 10 meters (as since, we've found Predator X and Weymouth Bay, and the Cumnor Monster was from Tehys).
The Monster of Aramberri and the different fauna of the Gulf of Mexico indicate that there was apparently during a few time barrer between the two seas. Pliosaurs of the Pacific ocean could have been bigger than those of Tethys.
Dr Stinnesbeck also hinted me that there are evidence of large 10-15 m pachycormids (leedsichthys), in the are of the Aramberri pliosaur.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 27, 2011 20:38:29 GMT
As I said, the animal isn't published yet, so no name available. It was firstly seen as a Liopleurodon species, but it appears to be not. However, it could have been an ancient parents of kronosaurs. As Dr Frey and Buchy said in an interview, the pliosaurs of Tethys sea didn't appear to have greatly exceed 10 meters (as since, we've found Predator X and Weymouth Bay, and the Cumnor Monster was from Tehys). The Monster of Aramberri and the different fauna of the Gulf of Mexico indicate that there was apparently during a few time barrer between the two seas. Pliosaurs of the Pacific ocean could have been bigger than those of Tethys. Dr Stinnesbeck also hinted me that there are evidence of large 10-15 m pachycormids (leedsichthys), in the are of the Aramberri pliosaur. Actually before it was misidentified as a Liopleurodon it was identified as a theropod dinosaur. Also the remains of what was suppose to be a rostrum with teeth was lost.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 27, 2011 20:49:37 GMT
As I said, the animal isn't published yet, so no name available. It was firstly seen as a Liopleurodon species, but it appears to be not. However, it could have been an ancient parents of kronosaurs. As Dr Frey and Buchy said in an interview, the pliosaurs of Tethys sea didn't appear to have greatly exceed 10 meters (as since, we've found Predator X and Weymouth Bay, and the Cumnor Monster was from Tehys). The Monster of Aramberri and the different fauna of the Gulf of Mexico indicate that there was apparently during a few time barrer between the two seas. Pliosaurs of the Pacific ocean could have been bigger than those of Tethys. Dr Stinnesbeck also hinted me that there are evidence of large 10-15 m pachycormids (leedsichthys), in the are of the Aramberri pliosaur. Actually before it was misidentified as a Liopleurodon it was identified as a theropod dinosaur. Also the remains of what was suppose to be a rostrum with teeth was lost. Yes, identified as a theropod back 1985. I know about the rostrum but look at this picture of an exhibition last year in Mexico : I'm maybe wrong but it seems that this bones wears some broken really big teeth, premaxillar. Maybe someone could confirm ?
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 27, 2011 22:16:03 GMT
A first mexican recreation of the skull
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Mar 27, 2011 22:43:38 GMT
Somebody has pinched some of the teeth from the model!
May I ask the source of those images?
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 27, 2011 22:52:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Mar 27, 2011 23:09:58 GMT
Thanks for the links Ted. I was involved in the BBC series to a minor degree so I'm looking forward to see how the plesiosaurs came out
|
|
|
Post by EmperorDinobot on Mar 28, 2011 10:34:57 GMT
You know? All Mosasaurus should be lumped together, as should all of these Pliosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Mar 28, 2011 10:38:54 GMT
Except some of the species of Pliosaur and Mosasaur have more differences between each other that cats and bears do.
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Mar 28, 2011 14:02:30 GMT
Except some of the species of Pliosaur and Mosasaur have more differences between each other that cats and bears do. It's weird how some people don't care to recognize any problem labeling any pliosaur "Liopleurodon", on the same board where people ranted for entire threads about how wrong Greg Paul was to place Mapusaurus in Giganotosaurus. This would be more like Paul lumping *every single theropod* into Velociraptor. Including Megalosaurus which was named one hundred years earlier. Because Velociraptor was in a movie so it should get priority.
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Mar 28, 2011 20:16:11 GMT
If it was 25m, and it was thought to be a liopleurodon, that's probaly why the liopleurodon on BBC WWD was 25m.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 28, 2011 21:44:09 GMT
If it was 25m, and it was thought to be a liopleurodon, that's probaly why the liopleurodon on BBC WWD was 25m. No because Walking With Dinosaurs was released in 1999.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 28, 2011 22:36:39 GMT
It's weird how some people don't care to recognize any problem labeling any pliosaur "Liopleurodon", on the same board where people ranted for entire threads about how wrong Greg Paul was to place Mapusaurus in Giganotosaurus. This would be more like Paul lumping *every single theropod* into Velociraptor. Including Megalosaurus which was named one hundred years earlier. Because Velociraptor was in a movie so it should get priority. THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Mar 29, 2011 10:11:52 GMT
Calm yourself, Mr Horridus.
|
|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Mar 29, 2011 11:17:00 GMT
If it was 25m, and it was thought to be a liopleurodon, that's probaly why the liopleurodon on BBC WWD was 25m. Aside from stoneage's point that WWD predated the Mexican Monster, one should also keep in mind that the individual in WWD was stated to be abnormally large, albeit "even for his kind.". So what WWD was really meaning was that Liopleurodon did not get to 25m long unless it was a really unusual case.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 29, 2011 11:31:00 GMT
So what WWD was really meaning was that Liopleurodon did not get to 25m long unless it was a really unusual case. Even if they grew throughout their lives that's still ridiculously enormous, mind, given that the largest known specimens are estimated at circa 7 metres in length. (As has already been pointed out.)
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 29, 2011 16:48:28 GMT
If it was 25m, and it was thought to be a liopleurodon, that's probaly why the liopleurodon on BBC WWD was 25m. Sorry man ! But unless we found a bigger species or that MOA or Predator X are described as really scientifically as Liopleurodon, your favorite sea monster was no bigger than an adult orca ! The WWD Male Liopleurodon was inspired by isolated pliosaurs remains in England which weren't from Liopleurodon in fact, and would have belonged to 15-17 m or maybe 20 m animals. An almost 4 m lower jaws would have been found in Dorset some years ago, but it was not confirmed. All this gave to the WWD producers the fact that very large pliosaurs could have existed, and since 18 m could have been an average lenght, they imagined a very largest specimen of Liopleurodon for the series, the biggest of its own kind (100 years old), so up to 25 m. But it wasn't inspired by the MOA. However, they used this discovery in the production of Chased by Sea Monsters, and using the MOA as a proof as Liopleurodon was able to grow to 25 m or more (as the paleontologists who found the Monster estimate the adults were possibly up to more than 25 m). Although, I have the impress in viewing Sea Monsters that the Liopleurodons shown are smaller than the big male in WWD, and sound more to be around 15-18 m than 25 m ! Maybe another men here are like me. A possible explanation is that at the time, they were going to shown more conservative Liopleurodons based on the English isolated remains, but that during the making, the juvenile sperm whale-sized Monster of Aramberri was found. Later, they added this fact on the file of Liopleurodon for the show, and explain again that it was able to grow such larger, even with smaller creatures on the screen.
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Mar 29, 2011 20:14:13 GMT
Don't worry, i'm convinced that liopleurodon was not 25m and that the Aramberri preditore was the largest preditore, but you said that liopleurodon was the size os a orca wich is 9.5m long, Horridus said that liopleurodon was 7m.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 29, 2011 23:22:30 GMT
Most of the bull orcas are around 7 metres long, 9 m or so was the world record. Although, Liopleurodon had a larger 1,3-1,5 m skull, orca's skull is 1 m long.
Knowing that Predator X is estimated to have a 16 tons bite force at 15 m long, I wouldn't be surprised that Liopleurodon could have more powerful bite than a great white or orca.
If the estimates are confirmed, Aramberri would be the largest pliosaur found (Frey says that the skull could be 3,5 long) and thus belong to the largest macropredatory species of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Mar 30, 2011 21:16:33 GMT
I would totally get involved in the love fest of debate if knew more about marine critters.
|
|