|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jun 15, 2011 7:59:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesltd on Jun 15, 2011 8:21:43 GMT
Ooooh quite interesting for us Aussies!I'm going to see what else I can find on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Jun 15, 2011 13:14:35 GMT
The paper hasn't come out yet, but I wouldn't put too much stock in the identification. It's only a fragment of a vertebra. And Aussie scientists have kind of a complex about interpreting very scrappy remains as "the first Australian _____!!!" even for groups that have no business being found in a Gondwanan continent. Think of Serendipaceratops (not a ceratopsian), Timumus (not an ornithomimid), the Aussie tyrannosaur (probably not), etc. etc.
On the other hand, we WOULD expect there to be spinosaurs in Australia. It would probably take more that a piece if a single bone to confirm it though.
|
|
|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Jun 16, 2011 8:21:39 GMT
I remember reading that some possible spinosaur teeth had been discovered elsewhere in Australia. So it seems more than a bit likely that this is from a spinosaur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jun 16, 2011 16:05:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by baryonyxraptor on Jun 16, 2011 18:25:42 GMT
Baryonyx larger than Tyrannosaurus Rex...well, you learn something new everyday  |
|
|
|
Post by Permiantriassic on Jun 16, 2011 18:43:02 GMT
They probably just mean members of the spinosaur family can reach a larger size than a tyrannosaur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jun 16, 2011 19:21:00 GMT
They probably just mean members of the spinosaur family can reach a larger size than a tyrannosaur. Maybe, but that's not what it says. It also says that T. rex has been found in Australia. |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jun 16, 2011 19:59:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jun 16, 2011 20:19:27 GMT
The Bary in the pictures is the one we have in Dino Jaws  |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jun 16, 2011 20:33:09 GMT
Wasn´t Australia part of south america by then?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Jun 16, 2011 20:42:56 GMT
Wasn´t Australia part of south america by then? It was connected to Antarctica, which was in turn connected to South America and Africa. |
|
|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Jun 18, 2011 2:49:52 GMT
Wasn´t Australia part of south america by then? It was connected to Antarctica, which was in turn connected to South America and Africa. So theoretically we might one day find carcharadontosaurs (and maybe abelisaurs, too) in Australia. It's interesting how Australia's Mesozoic fauna has exploded in recent years. When I was little, nearly all the named ones were herbivores, and the carnivores were either based on extremely fragmentary remains (Rapator, Kakuru, Ozraptor), or were the polar allosaur. In any case, our dinosaurs sucked compared to everywhere else. Now we have gigantic sauropods, Australovenator, and now this. It's like the most interesting stuff is being found right now. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Jun 18, 2011 12:15:55 GMT
It was connected to Antarctica, which was in turn connected to South America and Africa. So theoretically we might one day find carcharadontosaurs (and maybe abelisaurs, too) in Australia. Yup, and there's already at least one carcharodontosaur: Australovenator. (And Rapator, which is almost certainly a synonym of Australovenator). |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jun 18, 2011 18:51:54 GMT
Isn´t australovenator a neovenatorid? unless you mean basal carcharodontosaurid. Which by the way weren´t restricted to Gondwana in the Cretaceous but also lived in Europe (and maybe North america too? are we really sure that Dryptosaurus is a tyrannosaurid?  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jun 18, 2011 19:47:27 GMT
Isn´t australovenator a neovenatorid? unless you mean basal carcharodontosaurid. Still a carcharodontosaur, in the same way that eg. Edmontonia is an ankylosaur. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jun 18, 2011 20:25:35 GMT
Yep. But being in charcharodontosauridae is not he same that being a carcharodontosaurid ! not technically at least. I know what you mean but people who is less educated in the matter could get it completely wrong (like in that recent BBC documentary, speaking of Edmontonia. I´m positive they didn´t refer to it as an ankylosaur in the same sense that we do, seeing the quality of the product as a whole.)
Meh, not a great deal though. What about the chances of Drypto being a neovenatorid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jun 18, 2011 20:31:48 GMT
Actually, you might be right, since it seems that the Carcharodontosauridae now does not include Neovenator...bah, can't keep up with this taxonomy! |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jun 18, 2011 20:41:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Jun 18, 2011 23:18:27 GMT
Actually, you might be right, since it seems that the Carcharodontosauridae now does not include Neovenator...bah, can't keep up with this taxonomy! Well, it depends on the definition, but right now most people recognize something like: Allosauroidea --Sinraptoridae --Allosauridae --Carcharodontosauria ----Carcharodontosauridae ----Neovenatoridae So Neovenatorids are carcharodontosaurs but not carcharodontosaurIDs. Now, in some definitions of Carcharodontosauridae, it matches the newer definition of Carcharodontosauria. So if that's the kind you prefer, Neovenatoridae would simply become Neovenatorinae, a subfamily. It simply depends on what you mean by "carcharodntosaur", but neoventaotrs are a sub-group of carcharodontosaurs now matter how you slice it/choose to name it. |
|
