|
Post by Horridus on Feb 23, 2011 0:57:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Feb 23, 2011 2:56:05 GMT
Love the illustration! ;D New wallpaper.
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Feb 23, 2011 4:11:16 GMT
Poor Utahraptor...Cool new sauropod though. Is this the first Camarasaur from the Cretaceous?
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 23, 2011 5:06:35 GMT
A kicking sauropod...what a strange image.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 23, 2011 10:03:48 GMT
Cool!
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 23, 2011 15:13:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Feb 23, 2011 21:09:21 GMT
Apparently Brontomerus translates to "thunder thighs". This is officially my favorite dinosaur name.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 23, 2011 21:12:48 GMT
The name's an absolute gift to the media...as is Mike Taylor who comes out with some great quotes. I've seen a few reports on this so far and they've been pretty good (although the BBC used the term 'paleo-scientist' which was pretty funny).
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 23, 2011 22:38:58 GMT
Feels as though they wanted to salvage the thunder imagery fallen on the wayside of Apatosaurus for sauropods again. 'Thunder thighs' though... *Facepalm* Most undignified. *Sniffs in mock disdain*
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 24, 2011 0:14:38 GMT
Could be a chimera?
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 24, 2011 3:47:31 GMT
My fav name is still Dracorex hogwartsia. This thunderthighs is def up there though.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 24, 2011 6:59:16 GMT
Cracked says Dracorex has the lamest name of all dinosaurs. Therefore, your opinion is invalid.
Just kidding. Still, awesome name, and weird critter. Very weird, as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 24, 2011 18:34:28 GMT
I think its awesome for the same reason that they think its lame.
I have read that article btw. Ever see the "Ten dinosaurs you could take in a fight" article? Carnotaurus? Realy?
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 24, 2011 19:14:07 GMT
Could be a chimera? Why? Ever see the "Ten dinosaurs you could take in a fight" article? Carnotaurus? Realy? That is baffling. Is it just because of the atrophied forelimbs? Frankly I wouldn't want to take on an ostrich in a fight...never mind something much bigger than an ostrich...with a big mouth full of pointy teeth.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 24, 2011 19:59:12 GMT
Cracked generally has a greater opinion of itself than what it sees in any case, so I'm hardly surprised by such posturing.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 24, 2011 20:47:47 GMT
Cracked generally has a greater opinion of itself than what it sees in any case, so I'm hardly surprised by such posturing. But it is right about Dracorex. That's exactly why you can't let children name things. Or Harry Potter fans. Or way-too-invested fans of anything. Otherwise, we could wind up with a pterosaur named Cullenosaurus sparklivampyrus. And nobody wants that.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 24, 2011 23:09:15 GMT
Cracked generally has a greater opinion of itself than what it sees in any case, so I'm hardly surprised by such posturing. But it is right about Dracorex. That's exactly why you can't let children name things. Or Harry Potter fans. Or way-too-invested fans of anything. Otherwise, we could wind up with a pterosaur named Cullenosaurus sparklivampyrus. And nobody wants that. Oh, come, you know that's a specious argument and not even remotely worthy of comparison. ;D Hogwartsia as a suffix may be a matter of taste, but a name which reflects a dinosaur's dragon-like attributes doesn't seem absurd to me.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 25, 2011 16:33:19 GMT
Could be a chimera? Why? Ever see the "Ten dinosaurs you could take in a fight" article? Carnotaurus? Realy? That is baffling. Is it just because of the atrophied forelimbs? Frankly I wouldn't want to take on an ostrich in a fight...never mind something much bigger than an ostrich...with a big mouth full of pointy teeth. I'll tell you why. Because first of all they claim they have 10% of the animal. Look at the illustration of the bones, basically they have 11 bones and some fragments, some of which are mangled or incomplete. Look at the bones on the table, they cover about 9 square yards. Do you really believe this could be 10% of a large sauropod? There is no skull, neck, legs, and only two tail vertebrae. They also go on to mention that the bones are not from a single animal because they are of wildly different sizes. Some of the bones may be from a juvenile they claim. Also they show it kicking with its hind foot. What four legged animal uses its hind leg this way. Wouldn't it be easier to stomp something with your front legs or to kick backward with the hind legs. And this isn't taking into consideration all the problems atheletically with its enormous weight. I think it is a little premature to make all these assumptions. And I ask you how can they be so sure that everything is from the same Taxon? I find their argument less then convincing! If your wrong about one thing it's likely your wrong about other things.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 25, 2011 17:20:33 GMT
Also they show it kicking with its hind foot. What four legged animal uses its hind leg this way. Wouldn't it be easier to stomp something with your front legs or to kick backward with the hind legs. I must say, I did find that odd about the illustration. But that probably has more to do with the artist's vision than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 25, 2011 17:47:51 GMT
You'd be amazed at how many dinosaurs are known from very few bones. I think they have enough here and hell, they know what they're talking about. They do also acknowledge that the bones come from two individuals of different sizes.
|
|