|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 23, 2011 1:43:54 GMT
"There are hatchling that show tooth wear from chewed up plants which had leg muscle which were to weak to leave the nest" Where does it say that they had weak "leg muscle" -I doubt this would be the exact words in any case-? I´d like to see that paper referenced in the pdf. In fact, the teeth in those specimens appear to be worn regardless of their age, suggesting that they chewed their own food and thus they could be precocial. Some gregariousness is possible, of course. Yes that sentence is poorly written. What I meant to say was,"Maiasaura hatchlings show that their legs were not fully developed and thus they were incapable of walking. And fossils also show that the babys teeth were partly worn, which means that the adults brought food to the nest." Look I don't know how to get the paper, but you could try Horner & Makela 1979. Anyway everything written on Maiasaurus shows this evidence of parenting. I know of no one who says this evidence is wrong. Who says all Dinosaurs didn't nuture their young, what Paleontologist? Who agrees with you, Griffin, Horridus anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 23, 2011 1:56:02 GMT
Its griffin  and if you read I'm pro parental care with the dinosaurs that were being discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 23, 2011 2:56:12 GMT
I just got done watching "Feathered Dragons" and i must say, very well done. I have the same complaints as everyone else...especially regarding the venomous Sinornithosaurus but no complaints about the rest. I loved the Gigantoraptor, seeing a feathered animal so large is almost surreal, I can't imagine what it must have been like to see such a think but thanks to PD I can get a pretty good idea. It truly is nice to see feathered dinosaurs get their due. It would have been nice to see the feathered ornithischians as well though.
As for PD vs. DR...I'm gonna have to go with PD after re-watching the first episode and than this. PD encourages that sense of wonder that dinosaurs generate without taking things outside the realms of science and nature. DR still has more re-watch and entertainment value however and hopefully they will release one without the narration and talking heads. Ultimately, I am going to buy both on DVD regardless of which I think is better. I only have one episode left of DR so I feel confident in saying I think PD will win for me in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 23, 2011 5:06:05 GMT
The innacuracies and outdated stuff on this one made me feel sad, and some of the animation on Epidexipteryx too. But I still liked it, it was mostly fine and even entertaining. The Gigantoraptor mating ritual scene was probably my favourite, even when they played such a small role. And in the last sentence they even admited that birds are living dinosaurs ! "There are hatchling that show tooth wear from chewed up plants which had leg muscle which were to weak to leave the nest" Where does it say that they had weak "leg muscle" -I doubt this would be the exact words in any case-? I´d like to see that paper referenced in the pdf. In fact, the teeth in those specimens appear to be worn regardless of their age, suggesting that they chewed their own food and thus they could be precocial. Some gregariousness is possible, of course. Yes that sentence is poorly written. What I meant to say was,"Maiasaura hatchlings show that their legs were not fully developed and thus they were incapable of walking. And fossils also show that the babys teeth were partly worn, which means that the adults brought food to the nest." Look I don't know how to get the paper, but you could try Horner & Makela 1979. Anyway everything written on Maiasaurus shows this evidence of parenting. I know of no one who says this evidence is wrong. Who says all Dinosaurs didn't nuture their young, what Paleontologist? Who agrees with you, Griffin, Horridus anyone? We moved a bit since 1979. Geist and Jones proved in 1996 that Maiasaura hatchlings hindlimbs weren´t less developed that those of baby crocodiles or other precocial newborns. I think that even Horner eventually agreed with this. A lot of stuff has been written since then, most supporting the same. See, its not like I outright affirm that some extensive parental care (AKA doing something more than guarding the eggs and just stay near the hatchlings) in certain species is something impossible. But we need more solid evidence before taking it as a fact, or even a posibility. Meanwhile we can speculate all what we want, why not.... |
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Sept 23, 2011 7:27:10 GMT
I just got done watching "Feathered Dragons" and i must say, very well done. I have the same complaints as everyone else...especially regarding the venomous Sinornithosaurus but no complaints about the rest. I loved the Gigantoraptor, seeing a feathered animal so large is almost surreal, I can't imagine what it must have been like to see such a think but thanks to PD I can get a pretty good idea. It truly is nice to see feathered dinosaurs get their due. It would have been nice to see the feathered ornithischians as well though. As for PD vs. DR...I'm gonna have to go with PD after re-watching the first episode and than this. PD encourages that sense of wonder that dinosaurs generate without taking things outside the realms of science and nature. DR still has more re-watch and entertainment value however and hopefully they will release one without the narration and talking heads. Ultimately, I am going to buy both on DVD regardless of which I think is better. I only have one episode left of DR so I feel confident in saying I think PD will win for me in the end. Ditto on the liking of the second episode, "Feathered Dragons". Beautifully done dinos (lizards and grubs)! And the CGI backgrounds in this one looked better this time also. But, don't count out DR before you see the last episode with the T. rexes. Awesome segment! I also liked a lot the Allo/Tarbo/Sauropods segment too. But, if we're going by which animals in each look the most real, I'd probably have to go with PD. But like you, I'll be getting both DVDs as well. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 23, 2011 16:43:24 GMT
I saw the first episode with the spinosaurus. REALLY liked it. I think the way the dinosaurs are portrayed is very realistic and the CGI was good too.
Is there any way to get the other episodes online? I saw the first one on youtube.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 23, 2011 20:33:30 GMT
The second episode is on YouTube as well/
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 23, 2011 21:12:42 GMT
Ahhh got it. Yeah I liked that one a lot too. I like how they are giving some lesser shown dinosaurs a spot in the limelight like Sinraptor and stuff.
except for the poison thing ...boo
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 24, 2011 0:58:00 GMT
Ditto on the liking of the second episode, "Feathered Dragons". Beautifully done dinos (lizards and grubs)! And the CGI backgrounds in this one looked better this time also. But, don't count out DR before you see the last episode with the T. rexes. Awesome segment! I also liked a lot the Allo/Tarbo/Sauropods segment too. But, if we're going by which animals in each look the most real, I'd probably have to go with PD. But like you, I'll be getting both DVDs as well. ;D I've seen "End Game", it is "Survival Tactics" I need to watch. I thought the last episode was good but the asteroid impact kinda bummed me out. |
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Sept 24, 2011 1:23:37 GMT
I was able to watch the first third of the African episode. From what I saw, I really liked it. The CGI background was great, the animals very realistic, and the bits with the fossil evidence very informative. Based on what little I saw, it is at least equal to DR, although the two shows are so different in style that comparing them really doesn't seem fair.
I hope I can find another way to watch PD online (my computer hates youtube), otherwise I'm just going to have to wait for the DVD.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 24, 2011 2:41:14 GMT
We moved a bit since 1979. Geist and Jones proved in 1996 that Maiasaura hatchlings hindlimbs weren´t less developed that those of baby crocodiles or other precocial newborns. I think that even Horner eventually agreed with this. A lot of stuff has been written since then, most supporting the same. See, its not like I outright affirm that some extensive parental care (AKA doing something more than guarding the eggs and just stay near the hatchlings) in certain species is something impossible. But we need more solid evidence before taking it as a fact, or even a posibility. Meanwhile we can speculate all what we want, why not....[/quote] But Geist and Jones in 1996 didn't say that dinosaurs didn't parent their young. In fact they never precluded the provision of extended parental care. Here is the abstract from their paper: Non-avian dinosaur reproductive and parenting behaviors were mostly similar to those of extant archosaurs. Non-avian dinosaurs were probably sexually dimorphic and some may have engaged in hierarchical rituals. Non-avian coelurosaurs (e.g. Troodontidae, Oviraptorosauria) had two active oviducts, each of which produced single eggs on a daily or greater time scale. The eggs of non-coelurosaurian dinosaurs (e.g. Ornithischia, Sauropoda) were incubated in soils, whereas the eggs of non-avian coelurosaurs (e.g. Troodon, Oviraptor) were incubated with a combination of soil and direct parental contact. Parental attention to the young was variable, ranging from protection from predators to possible parental feeding of nest-bound hatchlings. Semi-altricial hadrosaur hatchlings exited their respective nests near the time of their first linear doubling. Some reproductive behaviors, once thought exclusive to Aves, arose first in non-avian dinosaurs. The success of the Dinosauria may be related to reproductive strategies. Notice they doubled in size while they were in the nest. Somebody had to be feeding them. In 2001 Jack Horner was again involved with a paper with this abstract: Abstract Ontogenetic changes in the bone histology of Maiasaura peeblesorum are revealed by six relatively distinct but gradational growth stages: early and late nestling, early and late juvenile, sub-adult, and adult. These stages are distinguished not only by relative size but by changes in the histological patterns of bones at each stage. In general, the earliest stages are marked by spongy bone matrix with large vascular canals. Through growth, the cortical bone differentiates into fibro-lamellar tissue that tends to become more regularly layered in the outer cortex. By the subadult stage, lines of arrested growth (LAGs) begin to appear regularly. Resorption lines and substantial Haversian substitution in many long bones also begin to appear at this stage, and the external cortex has a lamellar-zonal structure in some bones that indicates imminent cessation of growth. Judging by the rates of apposition of similar bone tissues in living amniotes, and by the number and placement of LAGs, these patterns suggest that young Maiasaura nestlings grew at very high rates, and at high and moderately high rates during later nestling, juvenile, and sub-adult stages, slowing to low and very low growth rates in adults (7-9 m total length). The nesting period would have lasted one to two months, late juvenile size (3.5 meters) would have been reached in one or two years, and adult size in six to eight years, depending on the basis for extrapolating bone growth rates. The histological tissues, patterns, and inferred growth rates of the bones of Maiasaura are completely different from those of living non-avian reptiles, generally similar to those of most other dinosaurs and pterosaurs for which data are available, and much like those of extant birds and mammals. No living reptiles (except birds) grow to adult size at these rates, nor do they show these histological patterns. We conclude that Maiasaura did not grow at all like living non-avian reptiles, which cannot be considered informative models for most aspects of dinosaurian growth (or physiology, to the extent that growth rates reflect metabolism). The use of lines of arrested growth (LAGs) to infer dinosaurian physiology has never been tested and is not supported by independent lines of evidence; their use in calculating age is also more complex than previously suggested and should not be based on single bones. All of this seems to support Parental Care! |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 24, 2011 4:26:15 GMT
Where did you get this abstract? It just seem to miss or avoid the point of the paper or doesnt match it content at all. Geist and Jones compared extant perinatal (the developmental stage immediately prior to and following hatching) birds and crocodilians to fossil dinosaur embryos and hatchlings. They found that the extent of hip bone development was more important than leg bone development for recognizing precocial versus altricial hatchlings, and that the leg bones of Maiasaura, Troodon and other dinosaurs did not reliably indicate the mobility of a hatchling. They suggested that the hatchling dinosaurs studied were likely precocial upon birth, although this does not preclude the provision of extended parental care. This is the abstract I know about: Skeletal ontogeny in extant archosaurians (crocodilians and birds) indicates that the morphology of the perinatal pelvic girdle is an indicator of overall developmental maturity [that is, altriciality (nestbound) versus precociality (mobile and relatively independent)]. Comparison of the skeletal anatomy of perinatal extant archosaurians and perinatal dinosaurs suggests that known dinosaur hatchlings were precocial. These data are consistent with the overall similarity in nesting behavior of dinosaurs and modern crocodilians. www.sciencemag.org/content/272/5262/712.shortThey werent making a case against parental care, and neither am I. Just suggesting the precocial nature of this hatchlings. Didn´t know about Horner paper though, I´ll have to check it out. But as far as I know todays broader consensus seems to be that there isn´t any conclusive evidence of mesozoic dinosaurs being altricial outside Enantiornithes, so our dear Jack must have forget or get something wrong (wouldn´t be the first time) |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 25, 2011 0:00:40 GMT
Where did you get this abstract? It just seem to miss or avoid the point of the paper or doesnt match it content at all. Geist and Jones compared extant perinatal (the developmental stage immediately prior to and following hatching) birds and crocodilians to fossil dinosaur embryos and hatchlings. They found that the extent of hip bone development was more important than leg bone development for recognizing precocial versus altricial hatchlings, and that the leg bones of Maiasaura, Troodon and other dinosaurs did not reliably indicate the mobility of a hatchling. They suggested that the hatchling dinosaurs studied were likely precocial upon birth, although this does not preclude the provision of extended parental care. This is the abstract I know about: Skeletal ontogeny in extant archosaurians (crocodilians and birds) indicates that the morphology of the perinatal pelvic girdle is an indicator of overall developmental maturity [that is, altriciality (nestbound) versus precociality (mobile and relatively independent)]. Comparison of the skeletal anatomy of perinatal extant archosaurians and perinatal dinosaurs suggests that known dinosaur hatchlings were precocial. These data are consistent with the overall similarity in nesting behavior of dinosaurs and modern crocodilians. www.sciencemag.org/content/272/5262/712.shortThey werent making a case against parental care, and neither am I. Just suggesting the precocial nature of this hatchlings. Didn´t know about Horner paper though, I´ll have to check it out. But as far as I know todays broader consensus seems to be that there isn´t any conclusive evidence of mesozoic dinosaurs being altricial outside Enantiornithes, so our dear Jack must have forget or get something wrong (wouldn´t be the first time) Opposed hypotheses In their original description of embryonic remains from the Willow Creek Anticline, Horner and Weishampel (1988) cited degree of ossification of the leg bones of Maiasaura and Troodon (then thought to be Orodromeus) to indicate the level of mobility of young after hatching. Subsequently, Geist and Jones (1996) compared extant perinatal (the developmental stage immediately prior to and following hatching) birds and crocodilians to fossil dinosaur embryos and hatchlings. They found that the extent of hip bone development was more important than leg bone development for recognizing precocial versus altricial hatchlings, and that the leg bones of Maiasaura, Troodon, and other dinosaurs did not reliably indicate the mobility of a hatchling. Geist and Jones suggested that the hatchling dinosaurs studied were likely precocial upon birth, although this does not preclude the provision of extended parental care. Horner et al. (2001) countered Geist and Jones' (1996) argument after an extensive histological analysis of turtle, crocodilian, non-avian dinosaur, and bird embryonic and perinatal bones that compared bone developmental patterns and growth rates. The authors correlated ossification and growth rates with life-history strategies. Horner et al. (2001) concluded that developmental differences (including growth rates) in embryonic and perinatal dinosaur bones from the Willow Creek Anticline indicate a precocial lifestyle for Troodon and Orodromeus hatchlings and an altricial lifestyle for hadrosaur hatchlings that necessitated parental care; this work supported their original hypothesis (Horner and Weishampel 1988). |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Sept 25, 2011 16:36:35 GMT
Just saw the first 2 episodes on youtube (HD 720). I must say I am very impressed. The animation was taken to a new post-WWD level. The Spinosaurus was extremely well-done. And I really appreciated the updates regarding the new discoveries. This is one show where the 'updates' were extremely well-done and did not detract from the rest of the show.
I personally never got excited by feathered dinosaurs but the second episode was the most amazing dinosaur show I have ever seen. The animation was incredible, the gliding sequences absolutely stupefyingly stunning (how's that for superlatives?)
If there was such a thing, that episode is worthy of a dino-show Oscar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Krissy on Sept 28, 2011 22:12:04 GMT
The newest episode didn't disappoint. The Daspletosaurus sequences were fantastic. I think it's only while viewing this episode I realized how much our understanding of dinosaur populations throghout the world, not just North America and Europe, has improved lately.
Also, the BBC 4 programme 'Rex Appeal' was a good watch too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Sept 29, 2011 0:13:32 GMT
I've been following the series too. While it's been a little bit of a mixed bag at times, I'm really enjoying it. Some of the sequences have been spine-tinglingly stunning, while others have lacked a certain 'oomph'. And the animation is a bit hit and miss. I suspect the deviations into scientific exposition will become unwanted upon repeat viewings, but at least they have been done very well. I'm impressed.
There are marine reptiles next week. oooooh!
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 29, 2011 0:51:18 GMT
Edmontosaurus and especially Centrosaurus had a great design. Daspletosaurus and Majungas were also rather good.
Too bad there wasn´t any close up of the Rahonavis because they also looked nice.
The rest of the animals were a bit bland, and...pack hunting featherless (or just slightly fuzzy) troodonts? *facepalm*
The showing evidence part was overall ok, more cautious than in previous episodes when it come to conclusions. Nothing of what Mr. Hurt said made me frown, that I can remember.
The animation was more enjoyable too, but the river at the end looked a bit off. I think they should have shot at least this scene on a true river and then implement the effects of the splashing dinosaurs later, or something like that. It probably would have look much better that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by dyscrasia on Sept 29, 2011 12:22:45 GMT
I've just watched the latest episode and very much enjoyed it...
Although one of the few gripes I had was that the Dasplatosaurus had almost uniform teeth...
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 29, 2011 19:11:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 29, 2011 23:33:00 GMT
Grrr the new episode isn't on youtube. Any other way I could get to see it?
|
|
and if you read I'm pro parental care with the dinosaurs that were being discussed. 
